Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

CHICHESTER HARBOUR CONSERVANCY BILL (By Order)

Order for Second Reading read.

Bill to be read a Second time upon Tuesday next.

CITY OF LONDON (VARIOUS POWERS) (No. 2) BILL (By Order)

Order for Second Reading read.

Bill to be read a Second time upon Tuesday next.

GREATER LONDON COUNCIL (GENERAL POWERS) (No. 2) BILL (By Order)

Order for Second Reading read.

Bill to be read a Second time upon Thursday next.

HARINGEY CORPORATION BILL (By Order)

Read a Second time and committed.

ISLE OF WIGHT COUNTY COUNCIL BILL (By Order)

Order for Second Reading read.

Bill to be read a Second time upon Thursday next.

LONDON TRANSPORT (No. 2) BILL (By Order)

Order for Second Reading read.

Bill to be read a Second time upon Tuesday next.

TORBAY CORPORATION (NO. 2) BILL (By Order)

Read a Second time and committed.

Oral Answers to Questions — SOCIAL SERVICES

National Insurance Fund

Mrs. Shirley Williams: asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what will be the estimated deficit on the National Insurance Scheme, assuming no changes in benefits or contributions, in the calendar year 1971.

The Secretary of State for Social Services (Sir Keith Joseph): The present estimate is that the income of the National Insurance Fund would exceed outgo by about £30 million in 1971.

Mrs. Williams: In view of the fact that, as I am sure the Secretary of State will agree, there will be very large sums to be raised in order to meet the urgent need for a substantial increase in old-age pensions in the autumn, does the right hon. Gentleman agree that this will be necessary through earnings-related contributions? Also, would he regard it as just that any earnings-related contributions should be associated with earnings-related benefits?

Sir K. Joseph: Those questions go far beyond that on the Order Paper, but certainly the balance of contributions is now swinging towards earnings-related, as brought in by the last Government.

Sir B. Rhys Williams: Is it not time for the Government to recognise that the National Insurance system based on flat-rate contributions must soon come to an end?

Sir K. Joseph: We already have a contributions system based only partly on flat rate.

Mr. O'Malley: Will the computer complex at Newcastle be ready in April, 1973, in order to introduce earnings-related contributions?

Sir K. Joseph: The hon. Gentleman should put down a Question about that.

National Health Service (Expenditure)

Mrs. Shirley Williams: asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what proportion of the total expenditure on the National Health Service was spent on hospitals, general practice and community health services, respectively, in 1970–71; and whether he intends to alter these proportions in 1971–72 or 1972–73.

Sir K. Joseph: Briefly, expenditure on hospitals will increase from 60·5 per cent. of the total expenditure on the health and welfare programme in 1970–71 to 62·7 per cent. of the expenditure in 1972–73. Expenditure on family practitioner services will change from 21·9 per cent. to 19·6 per cent.—an increase in the service, but including an increase in charges—and expenditure on community health and welfare services from 13·7 per cent. to 15·2 per cent. over the same period.
I have arranged for full details to be circulated in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Mrs. Williams: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for that reply. Does he agree that the increase in community health and welfare services is such that it would be very difficult to put much greater reliance on those services in the next few years and that, consequently, many people would be left in institutions who,

HEALTH AND WELFARE PROGRAMME (GREAT BRITAIN)—CALCULATED FROM TABLE 2.16 OF THE WHITE PAPER ON PUBLIC EXPENDITURE, 1969–70 TO 1974–75 (CMND 4578)


£million


At 1970 Survey prices



1970–71
1971–72
1972–73


HOSPITALS



Estimate
Estimate
Estimate


Capital expenditure
…
…
…
139·8
159·3
172·8


Current expenditure
…
…
…
1,075·9
1,119·7
1,162·3


Total
…
…
…
1,215·7
1,279·0
1,335·1






(60·5 per cent)
(62·1per cent.)
(62·7 per cent.)


FAMILY PRACTITIONER SERVICES


Capital expenditure*
…
…
…
0·6
0·2
0·1


Current expenditure
…
…
…
438·5
424·7
418·0


Total
…
…
…
439·1
424·9
418·1






(21·9 per cent.)
(20·6 per cent.)
(19·6 per cent.)


COMMUNITY HEALTH AND WELFARE SERVICES


Capital expenditure*
…
…
…
38·0
46·6
52·0


Current expenditure
…
…
…
221·2
239·1
255·6


Selective employment tax paid by Local Authorities
…
…
…
16·0
16·3
16·6


Total
…
…
…
275·2
302·0
324·2






(13·7 per cent.)
(14·6 per cent.)
(15·2 per cent.)


OTHER CENTRAL SERVICES AND GRANTS, DEPARTMENTAL ADMINISTRATION


Capital expenditure
…
…
…
4·0
4·2
4·1


Current expenditure
…
…
…
34·1
36·4
38·7


Welfare Foods


Current expenditure
…
…
…
41·4
15·3
10·5


Total
…
…
…
79·5
55·9
53·3






(3·9 per cent.)
(2·7 per cent.)
(2·5 per cent.)


Total expenditure on Health and Welfare
2,009·5
2,061·8
2,130·7






(100·0 per cent.)
(100·0 per cent.)
(100·0 per cent.)


As is indicated in the White Paper, the above figures do not include expenditure on child care in England and Wales or on social work in Scotland.


* Capital expenditure on health centres is included under "Community Health and Welfare services".

strictly speaking, should be returned to the community?

Sir K. Joseph: By any ideal standards, the hon. Lady's observations are absolutely correct. We have a long way to go to get the balance right. But she should not underestimate the differential increases which are occurring over the next two years in community health and welfare services, which will increase by just on 18 per cent., while expenditure on hospital services will increase by just on 10 per cent.

Mr. Pavitt: Will the right hon. Gentleman look at the content of the 19 per cent. for general practitioner services, in view of the fact that about 8 per cent. is for general medical services and nearly 12 per cent. for pharmaceutical services? Should there not be a change in that balance?

Sir K. Joseph: I will examine what the hon. Gentleman said.

Following is the information:

Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act, 1970

Mr. Ashley: asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what directions to date he has issued to local authorities to enable them to implement the provisions of the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act, 1970.

The Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Security (Mr. Michael Alison): My right hon. Friend has no powers to issue any such directions but a circular of guidance was issued in August last.

Mr. Ashley: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that that circular is a shabby document, because it exaggerates the difficulty of finding out who the disabled people are and where they live? Is he further aware that the most recent estimates suggest that nearly two million people are not on the register of local authorities? Would he therefore consider issuing a new circular to encourage local authorities to compile a 100 per cent. register of ail disabled people—rather than discouraging them?

Mr. Alison: It was a factual circular which it would be wrong to describe as "shabby". The full extent of disability is precisely what we are examining through our national surveys. The hon. Gentleman will know that a number of the "missing" disabled, if there are such large numbers, are already receiving services under other Acts.

Dame Irene Ward: To help with the implementation of the Act, would my hon. Friend think it a good idea to hold a general conference at his Ministry to discover the problems, because in the introduction of any new Measure which contains wide-ranging provisions local authorities would welcome an opportunity to hear of the problems which are faced by other local authorities? Might it not also help the Minister to have this information?

Mr. Alison: I certainly note my lion. Friend's suggestion. There are, of course, a large number of inter-Departmental discussions taking place on this subject the whole time. If an initiative comes from local authorities supplementary to

that which already exists, we shall certainly consider it.

Mr. Weitzman: asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what guidance he has given to local authorities as required by Section 2 of the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act, 1970, in order that they may carry out the duties imposed upon them under that Section.

Mr. Conlan: asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what recent advice he has given to local authorities with regard to the implementation of the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act, 1970.

Mr. Latham: asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what advice he is giving local authorities about the financial provision in their 1971–72 estimates for the implementation of the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act, 1970.

Sir K. Joseph: I will, if I may, answer Questions Nos. 4,7 and 37 together.
A comprehensive circular of guidance has been sent to local authorities about the provisions of the Act, and further advice will be given on specific matters at the proper time. The Rate Support Grant negotiations of last November allowed for appreciable development of these services over the next two financial years.

Mr. Weitzman: Does the right hon. Gentleman appreciate that under Section 2 of this Act local authorities rely, for the carrying out of their duties, on general guidance and regulations issued by the Minister? As the Labour Government ensured, before the General Election, that the Act would become law by 29th August of last year, is it not disgraceful that nothing practical has yet been done to provide local authorities with guidance on this matter?

Sir K. Joseph: The House knows that local government is at present reorganising its services into new social service departments. At the same time, the national survey of handicapped launched by the last Government is being printed. We shall, during the next few months, be publishing that report, and as soon as possible thereafter guidance to local authorities on how they should carry out


their local surveys of need in relation to the handicapped will be issued to help them fulfil their obligations under Section 2 of the Act.

Mr. Speaker: Mr. Conlan.

Mr. Weitzman: On a point of order. In view of the unsatisfactory nature of that answer, I beg to give notice that I shall raise this matter on the Adjournment.

Mr. Conlan: May I ask the Secretary of State—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I am afraid that I have no option but to call the next Question, the hon. and learned Member for Stoke Newington and Hackney, North (Mr. Weitzman) having given notice to raise the matter on the Adjournment, so shutting out about four supplementary questions.

Mr. Edwin Wainwright: On a point of order. I distinctly heard you, Mr. Speaker, call my hon. Friend the Member for Gateshead, East (Mr. Conlan) to put a supplementary question before my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Stoke Newington and Hackney, North (Mr. Weiztman) gave notice of his intention to raise the matter on the Adjournment.

Mr. Speaker: I have every sympathy with the hon. Gentleman, but I am afraid that I have no option but call the next Question. Mr. McElhone, No. 5.

Later—

Mr. Speaker: As there may have been some confusion over Question No. 7, for which I may have been partly responsible, I now invite the hon. Member for Gateshead, East to ask Question No. 7.

Mr. Conlan: I am much obliged, Mr. Speaker.

Sir K. Joseph: I have already answered it with Question No.4.

Mr. Conlan: In spite of the right hon. Gentleman's explanation, many thousands of people are still anxiously awaiting implementation of the Act. Will he take whatever steps he can to bring about its early implementation?

Sir K. Joseph: Implementation of the Act will not by itself increase the services available to the people concerned. If the hon. Gentleman knows of people who are

waiting for the services which are already, in principle, authorised, let him put them in touch with the local authorities or with me.

Mr. McElhone: asked the Secretary of State for Social Services if his Department will initiate a television and Press campaign to inform all chronically sick and disabled persons of their rights under the 1970 Act.

Mr. Weitzman: asked the Secretary of State for Social Services whether he will take immediate steps through radio, television and the Press to acquaint all chronically sick and disabled persons with their rights and the duties imposed upon local authorities under the provisions of the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act, 1970.

Sir K. Joseph: The Act is already receiving very wide publicity. In my view, the requirement now is not for general publicity but for local information about the need for, and availability of, services in each area.

Mr. McElhone: Would the right hon. Gentleman agree that as most local authority social work departments are not able fully to appreciate the implications of Sections 1 and 2 of the Act, he would be doing a service for the disabled and handicapped if such a television and Press advertising campaign were initiated?

Sir K. Joseph: The House should recognise that the task ahead of local government in increasing help for the handicapped is enormous and that the known need will tax to the full local government resources, when reorganised. There is at this stage a need to get on with it locally, which local government will be able to do when its social service departments are in action.

Mr. Weitzman: I apologise for my earlier statement. I did not fully appreciate the position.
Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the tremendous ignorance that exists among local authorities, among the chronically sick and disabled and among his own officers about the working of the Act? Does he recall that in regard to pensions for the over–80s he went on television to announce that a sum of £60,000 was to be paid, but that only 100,000 people were affected? About


two million chronically sick and disabled people are affected here. Are the Government so chronically sick and disabled that they are reluctant to take a step of this kind?

Sir K. Joseph: The hon. and learned Gentleman is getting his analogies wrong. In respect of the very old, we voted a specific sum and it was waiting to be collected. The needs of the disabled are infinitely varied and cannot be met by a simple act of will on the part of the Government. They need an infinite range of different services. Local publicity and local services are obviously what is needed.

Mrs. Sally Oppenheim: Is my right hon. Friend aware that hon. Members on this side of the House entirely support the underlying purpose of the Act and would like to see it implemented as widely as possible, but that there is growing evidence that some hon. Gentlemen opposite, and others, are determined to use the Act as a political football, which would be entirely detrimental to the disabled, whom we all want to help?

Sir K. Joseph: I make no complaint whatever of criticism from hon. Gentlemen opposite. However, my hon. Friend is right in that disappointment could be created among the disabled if expectations were raised so high of services that could not, in the nature of things, be created automatically on a vast scale.

Mr. Mayhew: Is the right hon. Gentleman satisfied that it is widely enough understood which categories of mentally handicapped people are provided for under this admirable Act? Will he define those categories specifically and make clear that some types of mentally sick, as well as the subnormal, are included?

Sir K. Joseph: The Act does not define "handicap" in that way. The hon. Gentleman knows that the spectrum of Government and local authority services is seeking to improve the provision for the mentally handicapped and mentally ill in hospital and in the community.

Dame Irene Ward: Does my right hon. Friend agree that hon. Members can themselves do a great deal in their constituencies to help in this matter? Is he aware, for example, that I should be horrified to hear that hon. Members did

not, when handicapped people came to see them, put them in touch with their local authorities? In other words, would my right hon. Friend agree that not just the Secretary of State and Ministers generally but hon. Members have a responsibility in this sphere?

Sir K. Joseph: My hon. Friend sets an admirable example to us all. It is indeed true that hon. Members can do a great service for their constituents and local authorities.

Mr. Edwin Wainwright: The right hon. Gentleman has given the impression that he wants the Act to come into operation very gradually. Will he ensure that with all haste local authorities are given the knowledge they need to implement the Act, bearing in mind that many chronically sick and disabled people are in urgent need of help, especially in the heavy industrial and coal mining areas?

Sir K. Joseph: There is no intention to delay the implementation of the Act. There is just a realistic awareness of the difficulties through which local government is going in the reorganisation imposed on it by both parties.

Mr. Alfred Morris: Would the right hon. Gentleman agree, in regard to the supplementary question posed by my hon. Friend the Member for Woolwich, East (Mr. Mayhew), that Section 28 of the Act empowers him to lay regulations clearing up any difficulty that might exist about the definition of chronic illness, chronic sickness, disability or disablement? In view of the points that have been made by my hon. Friends today, would he agree that he should now lay a regulation providing these interpretations?

Sir K. Joseph: I am aware of the powers. I do not think that the time has come to use them. It would be best to wait and see how the Act is working.

Mr. McElhone: asked the Secretary of State for Social Services how much his Department will spend this year on research and development to assist in the mobility and independence of disabled people under Section 22 of the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act, 1970.

Sir K. Joseph: Identifiable expenditure on research and development in this area will amount to about £375,000.

Mr. McElhone: Has the Minister got his priorities right? Does not he agree that by spending more on research and development he could make life much easier for disabled people and, perhaps, save his Department money on home helps, health visitors and so on, while at the same time—which is more important—giving greater freedom and dignity to the disabled?

Sir K. Joseph: I agree in principle that the research here can be effort well spent. If any hon. Member is aware of valuable research which is being neglected by my Department, I shall be delighted to receive evidence about it.

Mr. Pavitt: Will the right hon. Gentleman look again at the £3 million which he is proposing to cut off all the research councils, especially the Medical Research Council, as a result of the additional directive which came out since the Chancellor's October cuts?

Sir K. Joseph: That is not a question for me. My Department has a research budget of its own, and I was answering on that budget. I repeat the invitation to let me have the information for which I asked.

Mr. Michael Cocks: asked the Secretary of State for Social Services whether he is aware that there is widespread ignorance on the part of local authorities of the provisions of the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act, 1970; and whether he will take immediate steps to ensure that they are fully informed of their duties under the Act.

Mr. Alison: I have no reason whatever to think that the responsible authorities are not aware of these provisions.

Mr. Cocks: I thank the hon. Gentleman for that reply, but I am concerned about the lack of knowledge in this matter, especially as rate projections are now being made for the coming years. Will he look into it again?

Mr. Alison: I will look into any case which the hon. Gentleman cares to send to me. He will be aware that on 17th

August Circulars were sent not only to the clerks but to the relevant heads of departments of counties, county boroughs, London boroughs and urban and rural and district councils. They should all be aware of the provisions of the Act by now.

Mr. Alfred Morris: asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what instruction his local appliance centres have sent to disabled persons and, in the case of disabled children, to their parents concerning the effect of Section 20 of the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act, 1970; if he will reproduce a copy of this instruction in the OFFICIAL REPORT; what action he has now taken to review the instruction; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Alison: Letters were sent to users of attendant-controlled outdoor pushchairs and electric indoor chairs. I am arranging for copies to be reproduced in the OFFICIAL REPORT. The situation in respect of both types of chair is unchanged.

Mr. Morris: The letters from the appliance centres caused considerable concern to the parents of many severely disabled children, including thalidomide children. Will not the hon. Gentleman agree that, if their present vehicles cannot be properly used on the footway, they should now have vehicles which can be used outside the home as well as within it?

Mr. Alison: I note what the hon. Gentleman says. He will appreciate that it places a heavy burden of responsibility upon any Department to ask it to facilitate young thalidomide children to go out of the home on to the pavement, with, perhaps, sharp drops on to the road, without at the same time being able to guarantee complete safety, which we could not do.

The text of the letters is as follows:

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND SOCIAL SECURITY APPLIANCE CENTRE ADDRESS STAMP

Dear

Under Ministry of Transport Regulations which came into force on 29th September, 1970, the electric pushchair provided for you may be used on the pavement. There is no need now for the person who takes you out to have a driving licence. There is also no need to renew the vehicle excise licence when


it expires nor is there any requirement for insurance.

Will you accordingly please return the Notice of Insurance, MHM 383A, the Insurance Certificate, the Registration Book and the vehicle excise licence to this office in the envelope enclosed.

Yours faithfully,

Dear

I am writing about the powered indoor on them. chair provided for your use by this Department.

The passing of the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Bill has resulted in some publicity about the use of Powered chairs on when the London Borough of Brent at the pavement. Although it is no longer first refused to pay for the installation illegal to drive certain powered chairs on the of such a kidney machine at home, and pavement, I would like to remind you that
the powered chair issued for your use by this Department was supplied for indoor use only. This was made clear in the Conditions of Supply to which you have given you have given your signed agreement and these continue to apply.

Yours faithfully,

Home Dialysis Units

Mr. Michael Cocks: asked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will issue advice to local authorities that they should make no charge for any alterations needed to make a house suitable for a home dialysis unit.

Sir K. Joseph: This is a matter for the local authority to decide in each case according to the particular circumstances.

Mr. Cocks: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for that reply, but would he not agree that here is a clear question of using powers under Section 29, since people who are dependent for the rest of their lives upon a kidney machine can, surely, be said to be chronically sick? Will not the right hon. Gentleman consider making this one of the first uses of his powers in order to clear up the invidious distinctions between local authorities?

Sir K. Joseph: I have no evidence that local authorities are not sensibly using their discretion to remit charges where necessary for those who have home dialysis units.

Mr. Molloy: Many hon. Members on both sides feel strongly on this issue, since we had great hopes of what would come out of the Act. Will the right hon. Gentleman accept that, when we put Questions and supplementary questions, we put them very sincerely, and

will he in the circumstances ignore the asinine remarks of his hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester (Mrs. Sally Oppenheim) on Question No.5?

Sir K. Joseph: That does not arise from this question at all. I think that my hon. Friend's comments were entirely justified, though I added my own gloss on them.

Mr. Freeson: Will the right hon. Gentleman recall the difficulties which one of my constituents had some time ago when the London Borough of Brent at first refused to pay for the installation of such a kidney machine at home, and represented thereafter to the Ministry that, in its view, this was the Ministry's responsibility? I am not seeking to support that view, but may we have the Minister's view on the matter, before any further difficulties of this nature come in the way of people in my area or elsewhere?

Sir K. Joseph: I would rather study that case before commenting upon it. In principle, there is no reason why people who can afford to pay for the home alterations should not be allowed to do so.

Vitamins for Children

Mr. Redmond: asked the Secretary of State for Social Services whether the schools medical service and his medical advisory staff have been consulted about the proposal to give school children vitamin pills instead of orange juice and cod liver oil; and whether he is satisfied that this will not result in encouragement to young people to take pills of all kinds.

Mr. Alison: The vitamin preparation to be introduced in April is intended for pre-school children only and will be in the form of liquid drops. School children are not involved.

Mr. Redmond: I thank my hon. Friend for that reply, but has he seen medical reports to the effect that vitamin pills given to children who are already receiving a balanced diet can be harmful? Will he take that matter into consideration?

Mr. Alison: My hon. Friend will have noted that for children drops. not pills, are intended.

Regional Hospital Boards (Allocation of Funds)

Mr. Kenneth Clarke: asked the Secretary of State for Social Services whether he will make a statement about the redeployment of available funds betwen regional hospital boards in order to ensure that each board receives a fair share of such funds, bearing in mind the population it serves.

Sir K. Joseph: Annual revenue allocations to regional hospital boards are now made on a basis designed to reduce inequalities of financial provision without disrupting the services in the regions which are at present better off. The population served by each board features largely in the calculation.

Mr. Clarke: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for that reply, but he will be aware of the great inequalities which at present exist. Is he aware, for example, that the Sheffield Regional Hospital Board is £10 million short of its fair share of revenue required to provide a service for its population? Over what period of time does he envisage redeployment ironing out these differences between regions?

Sir K. Joseph: I spent a day recently with the Sheffield Regional Hospital Board, and I am aware of the position. It will probably take about ten years, moving gradually, as we must in order to be fair to all regions, to even out the financial provision available.

Dr. Summerskill: In view of the accepted discrepancies which exist between regions in both health service provision and hospital ward expenditure, what steps is the Minister taking to obtain a fairly equal standard of national provision, and what influence does he have with boards in this matter?

Sir K. Joseph: We are revising upwards each year the share of the extra money available to the boards with less resources in order, over about a ten-year period, to bring about equivalent revenue and capital availability, taking into account population, beds, and types and numbers of cases treated.

Speech Therapists

Mr. Arthur Davidson: asked the Secretary of State for Social Services if

he is satisfied with the number of speech therapists employed by hospitals; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Alison: The present number in England and Wales is equivalent to 172 whole-time staff and represents an increase of over 35 per cent. between 1965 and 1970, but we are aware that more would be welcome in many places.

Mr. Davidson: I am most grateful to the Minister for that reply, but is he aware that the services and easy availability of speech therapists are vital to those who suffer from, for example, the appalling infirmity of having lost the voice box? Is he satisfied that there are sufficient full-time therapists and that, perhaps, too many hospitals are not having to augment them with part-time therapists, excellent though these people may be?

Mr. Alison: I note with sympathy the hon. Gentleman's reaction, but he will have noted that we are not satisfied that there are enough. The Committee of Inquiry into speech therapy services is expected to report towards the end of the year, and this will help us in assessing what further provision we should make.

Hostels for the Mentally Handicapped

Mr. Michael McNair-Wilson: asked the Secretary of State for Social Services how many hostels for the mentally handicapped are now in operation in the United Kingdom.

Sir K. Joseph: There are now 240 local authority hostels for the mentally handicapped in operation in England, Scotland and Wales providing 4,956 places. An additional 2,187 places are available in voluntary and private hostels.

Mr. McNair-Wilson: To what extent will there be an increase in these hostel places? Can my right hon. Friend give any estimate of how many beds may be made free in mental hospitals as a result of the desire to move mentally handicapped people into that type of hostel?

Sir K. Joseph: There is considerable scope for moving people from mentally handicapped hospitals into the community. There are 43 local authority hostels under construction in addition to those I mentioned, and a further 322


hostels in local authority programmes for the period up to March, 1973.

Mrs. Shirley Williams: In view of the distressingly overcrowded condition of many wards in mentally handicapped hospitals still, despite the steps taken in the past year or so, will the right hon. Gentleman consider asking regional hospital boards as well as local authorities to consider establishing hostels, in this case within hospital grounds? My impression is that a number of the hospitals have sites large enough to allow hostels to be constructed.

Sir K. Joseph: Yes, Sir.

Paranoia

Mr. Michael McNair-Wilson: asked the Secretary of State for Social Services whether he will initiate an inquiry into the treatment of paranoia.

Mr. Alison: No, Sir. Paranoia is a well known, though rare, condition closely associated with schizophrenia. It appears in varying degrees of severity and a wide range of treatment is available.—[Laughter.] There is a good deal of on-going research mainly under the auspices of the Medical Research Council and in univerities.

Mr. McNair-Wilson: I am not quite sure why hon. Members should find this a subject to joke about. Anybody who has ever met a paranoiac realises that it is a very distressing condition. Does not my hon. Friend think that perhaps the Mental Health Act should be amended in such a way as to allow local authority medical services the power to bring such people into care by a measure of compulsion, particularly when they are no longer able to look after themselves?

Mr. Alison: I will certainly consider my hon. Friend's point. It is very difficult to make clear definitions and the borderline between paranoia and schizophrenia is one of those areas of rather vague definition. But a great deal of research is going on, and I will feed into it the question which my hon. Friend has put to me.

Dr. Miller: Will the hon. Gentleman reconsider this matter? It seems to me to be an admirable area in which an inquiry could be made. Will he also take into account that the inquiry could start

in this House, particularly on the benches opposite?

Mr. Alison: The serious point of that supplementary question is covered by my reference to the fact that the Medical Research Council is engaged in inquiries into this subject, wihch is one of its highest priorities.

Community Physicians

Mr. Pavitt: asked the Secretary of State for Social Services when the report of his working party on the role of the community physician will be published.

Sir K. Joseph: I would refer the hon. Member to my reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Essex, South-East (Mr. Braine) on 2nd February.-[Vol. 810, c. 308.]

Mr. Pavitt: It is the right hon. Gentleman's view that the community physician under the National Health Service should also be the Chief Medical Officer for the local health authority? When does he expect to bring forward his proposed report on restructuring the N.H.S. which will also cover the role of the community physician'? Will it be a consultative document or a White Paper?

Sir K. Joseph: The hon. Gentleman has asked a number of questions which are not on the Order Paper. I hope that there will be close co-operation in the use of the community physician between the local authority and the health authority. The answer to the second part of the hon. Gentleman's question is, "Soon".

Trade Disputes (Payments) Supplementary Benefit

Mr. Madel: asked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he is satisfied with the existing arrangements for welfare payments to families of people who have withdrawn their labour; and if he will make a statement.

Sir K. Joseph: The Government have been reviewing the question of supplementary benefit payments to the families of persons involved in trade disputes. I hope to make an announcement in due course.

Mr. Madel: As families of those involved in industrial disputes often suffer more hardship than is realised, may we


take it that the Government will not make changes in welfare payments which are harsh or unnecessary?

Sir K. Joseph: We shall not make changes which are harsh or unnecessary.

Mr. Grimond: Is the Secretary of State aware that temporary postmen who are not party to the present dispute but who are dismissed because of the stoppage of postal services have been denied both unemployment pay and National Assistance? Is not that wholly unjust?

Sir K. Joseph: I cannot believe that people with families are being denied supplementary benefit where they are entitled to it. Single persons involved in trade disputes are not entitled to supplementary benefit, but if the right hon. Gentleman knows of men or women with dependants being denied supplementary benefit when they are entitled to it, I should be grateful to be told.

Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind in his review of the subject that we now have incontrovertible evidence that international companies are shifting investment involving many thousands of jobs from this country because of the incidence of industrial disputes? Does it make sense for the taxpayer to be required to subsidise industrial anarchy when it has such results?

Mr. C. Pannell: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Can you tell us how that supplementary question bears at all on the responsibility of the Secretary of State for Social Services?

Mr. Speaker: Order. I thought that the latter part of the supplementary question was in order, as bearing on the Question.

Sir K. Joseph: I must ask my hon. Friend to await the announcement which I hope to make in due course.

Mr. Orme: Will the right hon. Gentleman not listen to the siren voices, particularly in the editorial columns of the Telegraph and The Times, urging such changes in comment written by people with no understanding of industrial relations? Will he bear in mind that if he makes changes along the lines suggested, they will, along with the Industrial Relations Bill, do the exact opposite in indus-

trial relations to that which is intended and seriously worsen the situation?

Sir K. Joseph: I am not responsible for speculation in the Press.

Mr. Hordern: Does my right hon. Friend agree that a distinction should be drawn between unofficial and official strikes? Why should the community assist those unofficial strikers who are striking not against their company but against their own union? That is the point about which the House would like to know.

Sir K. Joseph: I must also ask my hon. Friend to await the announcement.

Mr. O'Malley: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that we on this side utterly reject the harsh philosophy underlying the series of questions asked by the hon. Member for South Angus (Mr. Bruce-Gardyne)? In view of the very broad nature of the Question, which refers to welfare payments and not to supplementary benefits, can the Secretary of State give us an assurance that in the review no consideration is being given to changing the availability of welfare benefits, as distinct from supplementary benefits, to the dependants of strikers?

Sir K. Joseph: My answer referred only to supplementary benefit payments. I must assert that my hon. Friend the Member for South Angus (Mr. Bruce-Gardyne) and all hon. Members are concerned for the national interest. It is against that background that the Government are considering the problem.

Mentally Handicapped Persons (Norwich)

Dr. Stuttaford: asked the Secretary of State for Social Services if, in view of the length of the waiting list for urgent admissions for the mentally subnormal in the Norwich area, he will authorise a building programme to increase the number of beds available at Plumstead Hospital.

Mr. Alison: No, Sir. The Region's services for the mentally handicapped are unduly concentrated in the Norwich area. The regional hospital board intends to deal with the problem by providing beds in other areas.

Dr. Stuttaford: But is my hon. Friend aware that the long-term planning for


the mentally subnormal in the whole of the regional hospital board area makes fewer beds available in the 1980s than are available in the 1970s?

Mr. Alison: The board's future plans are under discussion in the Department. I would rather not comment on them now. But I think that my hon. Friend will agree that there is undue concentration in Norwich at present.

Abortion and Family Planning

Dr. Stuttaford: asked the Secretary of State for Social Services if, in view of the overall savings which would accrue to the social services if the number of unplanned pregnancies were reduced, he will authorise general practitioners to prescribe oral contraceptives on the standard National Health Service prescription form for social as well as medical needs.

Sir D. Renton: asked the Secretary of State for Social Services when he proposes to make a statement on the extension of the Family Planning Service.

Mr. St. John-Stevas: asked the Secretary of State for Social Services whether he is now ready to make a statement on an official inquiry into the working of the Abortion Act.

Sir K. Joseph: I will, with permission, Mr. Speaker, answer Questions No. 21, 101 and 105 together at the end of Question Time.

Wolsgrave Hospital, Coventry (Private Patients)

Mr. Leslie Huckfield: asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what facilities have been available for private patients at Wolsgrave Hospital, Coventry, since its opening; how many private patients have been treated; and whether he will make a statement.

Sir K. Joseph: The number of private in-patients treated up to 31st January was 736. I am informed that at times the number of beds used for private patients exceeded the number authorised, and I have asked the regional hospital board to investigate and to report to me on any failure to observe the statutory procedure.

Mr. Huckfield: Is not the right hon. Gentleman aware that since the opening

of the hospital about £31,000 has been paid by private patients for private treatment? Is he aware that beds were promised to consultants before they were given authorisation by him? Is he further aware that on the hospital waiting list in the Coventry area there are over 5,000 patients? In addition to asking the Birmingham Regional Hospital Board for a report, will he institute a full public inquiry into what is fast becoming a national scandal?

Sir K. Joseph: No, Sir. I have no knowledge of these things. That is why I have asked the regional board for a full report.

Mr. William Price: Is the right hon. Gentleman able to tell us what percentage of that £31,000 went to the consultants? Is not this another example of the vicious secrecy with which the regional board conducts its affairs? Is it not clear that what we want is a full investigation of the board itself?

Sir K. Joseph: No, Sir. I am not able to answer those questions. But I must emphasise that there are two questions here, apart from the report which I await. One is the past and any possible irregularities there have been; the other is the future and the right number ofs private beds in this hospital group, on which, after long correspondence, I understand, between the hospital management committee and the regional board, I am awaiting advice.

Dr. Summerskill: What is the Government's policy towards private pay-beds? I welcome the inquiry which the right hon. Gentleman will hold into this matter, but will he bear in mind that the last Government reduced the number of private pay-beds in hospitals by over 1,000 in England and Wales? Does he plan a similar reduction or an even greater reduction?

Sir K. Joseph: I have no information on which to judge whether any reduction or increase is at the moment necessary. We think it right that people who wish to pay for hospital treatment should be entitled to do so in a proper proportion of National Health Service beds, always bearing in mind the needs of those who do not wish to pay, who constitute the vast majority.

Mr. Denis Howell: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that those of us who welcome his decision to inquire into this matter hope that he will protect the integrity of the inquiry by ensuring that any consultants or other personnel from this hospital who are also members of the regional board are not wearing two hats when the inquiry is going on? Will he take appropriate action to ensure that that does not happen?

Sir K. Joseph: I have not promised an inquiry into these things. I said that I have asked the regional board for a report. What I do after I study the report is for the Government's decision.

Census Data (Commercial Uses)

Mr. Leslie Huckfield: asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what restrictions he proposes to place on the sale and use of 1971 census data for commercial purposes; and whether he will make a statement.

Sir K. Joseph: No information about identified individual people or households is released to anyone outside the census organisation.
Census data published, sold or otherwise released are not analysed to such a level of disaggregation that information on individual people or households is disclosed. Publication of data from the census requires the permission of the Registrar General. These restrictions apply equally, whoever the user of the statistics.

Mr. Huckfield: Is not the right hon. Gentleman aware that fairly large sections of the last census were sold for commercial use? If he will not change the regulations about the sale of census data for commercial use, will he change the law which insists that people have to fill in census forms?

Sir K. Joseph: No, Sir. I assure the House that the information which was sold, and which under the law could be sold again, was in such a form that it was quite impossible for any individual identifiable information to be gathered by anyone who had access to the bought or released information.

Captain W. Elliot: Is my right hon. Friend aware that there is a good deal

of anxiety about the amount of information which is required on the new census forms? Will he do his best to publicise the remarks that he has just made?

Sir K. Joseph: Yes, Sir.

Dental Treatment (Charges)

Mr. Ellis: asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what percentage fall-off in dental treatment was noted by his Dental Rates Study Group when charges for treatment were first introduced and when the basic charge was increased from £1 to £1 10s., respectively; and whether the advice of the study group has been sought on the effects of the new charges which take effect in April, 1971.

Sir K. Joseph: For adults, a fall of 5 per cent. in 1952, but this was quickly recovered and the number of courses has continued to increase steadily since then—with no reduction when the charges were increased in 1968. Consultations with the Dental Rates Study Group would not have been necessary or appropriate.

Mr. Ellis: In view of the alarming fall which occurred following the comparatively small increase in charges, does not the right hon. Gentleman agree with the dental profession's justifiable alarm at the prospects when his proposals come into force shortly? Would not he agree that, if he were to consult the Study Group and its advice were in line with that of previous authorities, it would be wiser for him to reconsider his decision?

Sir K. Joseph: Certainly the dental profession is concerned, but I think that its concern is misplaced. I am sure that there will be a slight dip but that it will be recovered and that the increase of treatment will then continue.

Dr. Miller: Does not the right lion. Gentleman realise that he is hiding behind the statistics? While there may be a slight drop, it is completely accounted for by a section of the population which most requires attention to teeth.

Sir K. Joseph: I have no evidence of that. When the House takes into account the sharp increase in the income at which exemption will be available, it will realise that the dental profession's fears are misplaced.

CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (SPEECH)

Mr. John D. Grant: asked the Prime Minister if the public speech by the Chancellor of the Exchequer to the Overseas Bankers' Club at Guildhall on 1st February, 1971, concerning inflation represents the policy of Her Majesty's Government.

Mr. Sheldon: asked the Prime Minister if the public speech made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer on 1st February to the Overseas Bankers' Club in London on economic matters represents the policy of Her Majesty's Government.

Mr. Arthur Davidson: asked the Prime Minister if the public speech of the Chancellor of the Exchequer on 1st February to the Overseas Bankers' Club in London on economic policies represents the policy of Her Majesty's Government.

Mr. John Fraser: asked the Prime Minister if the public speech to overseas bankers made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer in London on 1st February on economic policies represents the policy of Her Majesty's Government.

The Prime Minister (Mr. Edward Heath): Yes, Sir. My right hon. Friend emphasised the need to defeat inflation; and, on the European negotiations, argued that our contribution to the Community budget should not be disproportionate. I am sure that his views command general support.

Mr. Grant: The Prime Minister will also be aware that the Chancellor referred to a voluntary incomes policy as not being practicable at present. Does the right hon. Gentleman believe that direct Government action to raise food prices, rents, rates, fares, welfare charges and so on, and to interfere with trade union rights, is calculated to help towards achieving such a policy?

The Prime Minister: This matter was debated at considerable length last Thursday, when the particular point raised by the hon. Gentleman was dealt with. The proposals on food prices, which

are part of the general agricultural policy, and the rent rebates which we are extending to the private sector as well as to the public sector as part of our housing policy, were among our proposals which we put before the electors. They have also been discussed in the House.

Mr. Sheldon: Since the Government cannot hope to reduce inflation by undermining the role of the independent arbitrators, can the right hon. Gentleman tell us whether the Government knew about the latest Civil Service pay award when they decided not to reappoint Professor Clegg?

The Prime Minister: That is an entirely different question but I will answer it. We did not know about this award, which was being made by the arbitrator at the time my right hon. Friend informed Professor Clegg of his decision.
I want to make it clear that the general impression given before the Report was published, that there was to be an increase of 20 per cent. for civil servants, was not correct and was unfair to the civil servants concerned. Those recommended to receive between 15 and 20 per cent. constitute no more than 3 per cent. of the staff involved. The remainder have increases from 15 per cent. to nil per cent. The average increase on the wage bill is, I am informed, 8·9 per cent.
I hope that the House will agree that it is of the utmost importance that those who publish wage settlements, through whatever media of communication, should await the Report before they Jo so and should then report it accurately.

Mr. Davidson: In his speech, the Chancellor of the Exchequer referred to a statutory incomes policy as "crude, unworkable and unfair". Is the Prime Minister aware that most trade unionists and their families would agree that that was an apt description of the Government's economic policy? Is he aware that that was why 100,000 of them marched in protest on Sunday?

The Prime Minister: The statutory wages policy was abandoned by the Labour Government, as announced by the then Chancellor of the Exchequer in his Budget Statement, because it corresponded exactly to the description which the hon. Gentleman has just quoted.

Mr. Fraser: The Prime Minister will he aware that the Chancellor of the Exchequer was speaking about inflation. Has the right hon. Gentleman considered the inflationary effects of the abolition of subsidies for commuter rail services in London? Does he propose to put pressure on the private sector, in accordance with what the Chancellor was advocating, to prevent people from getting wage increases to make up for the loss of income when fares go up when subsidies arc taken off?

The Prime Minister: It is well known that our policy is that none of these problems can be solved by repeatedly increasing subsidies. It is the burden of taxation on British industry and the consequential weakness which results which has led industry to ask for further and further subsidies, and which has led us into the difficulties of which we have seen an example recently.

Sir G. Nabarro: Would my right hon. Friend bear in mind that whereas everybody subscribes to the "desirable end", as the Chancellor of the Exchequer put it, of defeating inflation, it does no good at all for the most highly paid men in the public sector, such as Lord Melchett of the Steel Corporation, to have their salaries increased at this critical time from £16,000 a year to £25,000 a year, this after no fewer than five increases in the price of steel within two years, and all of it dreadfully inflationary?

The Prime Minister: I fully recognise the impact of any increase in steel prices, but in my time in the House my hon. Friend has been one of those who have been foremost in emphasising that, if one is to have high quality management in the nationalised industries, it is necessary to pay those appointed salaries corresponding to those in private industry. There is also the point that under all Governments the nationalised industries have had to bring in management from outside, and this only emphasises the importance of the point which I have just mentioned.

Mr. Bob Brown: Yesterday, in response to a point of order raised by my right hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Dell), the Prime Minister apologised for having misled the House last Thursday. In doing so he mentioned

the figure of £10 million. Will he not now concede that he further misled the House yesterday, as in this financial year there is nothing and next year the figure will be only £2 million? Will he now come clean and tell us precisely what this means for the North-East of England?

The Prime Minister: The position was exactly as I stated it. I said what the cost would be in a fully effective year, and I said that quite clearly. In any case, that has nothing to do with these four Questions.

Mr. Hordern: As the Labour Party gave up all pretence of operating a prices and incomes policy in the six months before the election and as the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Stechford (Mr. Roy Jenkins) pumped more money into the economy in the three months before the election than he had formerly proposed to put in for the whole year, is it not the plainest hypocrisy on the part of the Labour Party to talk in terms of inflation at all?

The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir.

Mr. Orme: Is the Prime Minister saying that if an arbitration award affects only a few people, 2 per cent. or 3 per cent., it is all right to pay increases of 15 per cent. or 18 per cent., but that if it is 200,000 postmen, it is not right? Is that the right Hon. Gentleman's new incomes policy?

The Prime Minister: That was not what I said, and the hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well that it is not ahe case. The point I am making is that the impression given this morning before the Report was published was that it was a general wage award of 20 per cent. affecting these classes in the Civil Service. That was untrue and unfair to those in the service.

Mr. Harold Wilson: The right hon. Gentleman agreed very briefly with his hon. Friend the Member for Horsham (Mr. Hordern) about pumping money into the economy in the second quarter of last year. Has he yet had an opportunity of looking at something to which I directed his attention, the report of the Bank of England that the greater part of the increase in the additional credit supply


was created after the second half of June last year?

The Prime Minister: I looked at these figures and I cannot agree with the Leader of the Opposition. The situation improved in the second half of June after the return of the Conservative Government, the increase of confidence and the improvement in the gilt-edged market which then followed.

BRENT

Mr. Pavitt: asked the Prime Minister if he will seek to pay an official visit to the London Borough of Brent.

The Prime Minister: I have accepted an official invitation to attend the Football League Cup Final at Wembley Stadium next Saturday.

Mr. Pavitt: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that I expected him to visit not only the League Cup Final, but the F.A. Cup Final, as did his predecessor? I do not ask him necessarily to linger in Neasden, in my constituency, which would no doubt welcome him, but could he use his influence on the Conservative Neanderthal Council of the London Borough of Brent, as my borough is now getting a reputation throughout the country for its appalling housing policy which is having a terrible effect in dividing not the nation but my borough into two, Willesden and Wembley? On his way to the Cup Final, will he stop off at the town hall and have a word with the terrible Tory councillors, who are pursuing terrible policies?

The Prime Minister: I understand that the council proposes to put out to tender nearly 2,000 dwellings in 1971 and approximately 1,000 in 1972 and 1973, and those do not seem to me to be terrible proposals.

Sir E. Bullus: May I assure my right hon. Friend that he will always be very welcome in the Borough of Brent and that he will be given a tumultuous welcome by the residents there?

The Prime Minister: I am looking forward to seeing my hon. and gallant Friend at Wembley.

INTERNATIONAL HUMAN RIGHTS

Mr. Peter Archer: asked the Prime Minister which Minister is responsible for answering Questions relating to the implementation in domestic law of international human rights obligations.

The Prime Minister: Where the Question concerns international human rights obligations in general, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs would normally answer. Where it relates to obligations in a particular field, the Minister responsible for that field would reply.

Mr. Archer: Is it not a curious arrangement, even for the present Government, to make the Foreign Secretary answerable for domestic legislation? Do we not require some machinery for supervising proposed legislation for conformity with human rights, for example, the Industrial Relations Bill, particularly as we are not entitled to discuss all the Clauses in the House?

The Prime Minister: No, Sir. It has been the custom under all Administrations for the Foreign Office, which is responsible for the negotiation and observance of treaties, to have these general responsibilities for human rights. If there is a particular aspect, such as an International Labour Office regulation, naturally the Department of Employment is primarily concerned. I know that the hon. Member has suggested the setting up of an inter-departmental committee, but co-ordination among Departments about legislation of this kind is sufficiently close to deal with these matters, and to create a further piece of inter-Departmental machinery would be clumsy and expensive.

Mr. Grimond: Is the Prime Minister aware that the Commission has found that there is a prima facie case against this country over the Kenya-Asians, and is not this an exceedingly serious matter for the good name of this country. [HON. MEMBERS: "And for Kenya."] Would he take steps to see that the Home Secretary deals with this matter in the Immigration Bill which I believe is to be presented to the House today?

The Prime Minister: As the matter is sub judice, it would be better for me not to comment and, obviously, my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary cannot take account of any view expressed by the Commission until it has reached its conclusions.

Mr. Harold Wilson: While the right hon. Gentleman is undoubtedly right in saying that the Foreign Secretary must be the Minister responsible for the conduct of these matters in international negotiations, would he say whether when he met Major Chichester-Clark recently he drew the attention of the Northern Ireland Government yet again to the fact that we have international responsibility for human rights matters? Did he get an assurance from the Prime Minister of Northern Ireland that at the earliest moment the Northern Ireland Government will proceed to remove all the aspects of the Special Powers Acts which are in conflict with our international obligations?

The Prime Minister: The Prime Minister of Northern Ireland has given that assurance publicly, and that assurance remains firm.

BANK OF ENGLAND

Dr. Gilbert: asked the Prime Minister how many times he has been officially entertained at the Bank of England since 18th June, 1970.

The Prime Minister: None, Sir, but I have accepted an invitation to lunch with the Governor and the Court on 6th May.

Dr. Gilbert: When the Prime Minister meets the Governor will he discuss with him the fact that his Government's heavy reliance on monetary policy is having serious effects on efficient firms which have a small ratio of cash to sales, whereas inefficient firms with large cash balances not invested are managing to get along all right? Is not this a policy of the survival of the fattest rather than the fittest? Was not this comment a criticism which the right hon. Gentleman himself made of the introduction of corporation tax, a very fair criticism when the tax was introduced in 1965? Are we not now saddled with a situation in which the pernicious effects of the tax system, which the right hon. Gentleman himself identi-

fied, are reinforced by his own Government's monetary policy?

The Prime Minister: It is not true that the Government are relying only on monetary policy. We are relying on a combination of economic weapons in order to deal with the inflationary situation. Nor is it true that because a firm does not have a satisfactory cash flow, it is therefore efficient, or because it has cash resources, it is inefficient. That surely is a very arbitrary judgment.

Mr. Marten: If the Prime Minister does lunch at the Bank will he remind the Governor that under the Labour Government Bank Rate was never so high for so long since 1694 when the Bank was formed?

The Prime Minister: I do not think it necessary to remind the Governor or the Court of that fact.

Mr. Cant: When this engagement takes place, would the Prime Minister congratulate the Governor upon his control of money supply, at any rate in recent weeks? Would he accept the fact that the problem of managing the economy is a consequence of the very large balance of payments surplus bequeathed to the Government, plus the fact that Bank Rate is at such a very high level that we have this vast flow of hot money? Would he say to the Governor, "Please reduce Bank Rate so that we can ease this problem"? Is he aware that that might lead to a more satisfactory solution to the inflation problem?

The Prime Minister: I am glad to hear the tribute to the Governor over the control of the monetary policy, because it has been regained in the last six months. When the hon. Gentleman speaks of an inflow of money into this country he is also accepting that the control of monetary policy has been maintained even in the face of this inflow, and that is the consequence of activities on the gilt-edged market.

Mr. Barnett: If the Prime Minister is using not only money supply, would he say what other solutions he is using to reduce unemployment?

The Prime Minister: We had this debate on Thursday. Unemployment at the moment is to a large extent the reflection of the cost inflation against which we are battling.

ABORTION AND FAMILY PLANNING

The Secretary of State for Social Services (Sir Keith Joseph): I will, with permission, Mr. Speaker, now answer Question No. 21, No. 101 and No. 105 together.
The Government have now studied the working of the 1967 Abortion Act. Our conclusion is that, while the Act has operated to the benefit of many people, there is cause for real concern about the way in which certain of its provisions are working in practice. We therefore propose to appoint a committee of inquiry to review the operation of the Act on the basis that the main conditions for legal abortion remain unaltered. I will, if I may, circulate the full terms of reference in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
The essential point is that the inquiry will be concerned with the way the Act is working and not with the principles that underlie it. It will be open to the Committee not only to recommend changes in the law but also to suggest interim changes in the Regulations under the present Act should they find this necessary. I am glad to tell the House that the Honourable Mrs. Justice Lane has accepted our invitation to preside over the inquiry, and, in choosing other members, we shall be looking for people with the right kind of knowledge and experience who are not already committed on the subject.
The Government believe that family planning can often improve the quality of domestic life: it can prevent the unhappiness that unwanted pregnancies can cause and reduce the need for abortion. The Government propose to encourage the growth of local authority family planning, including domicilary services, particularly in areas of special need. Provision has therefore been made mainly in the rate support grant for expenditure in England and Wales to treble by 1972–73. The rate of growth in subsequent years has yet to be settled. Advice will remain free to all and so will equipment to those requiring it on medical grounds. Local authorities may waive charges for equipment in other cases.
Hospital authorities are also being asked to increase provision for family planning.
No change is proposed in the arrangements for the provision of family planning advice and equipment by general practitioners.

Dr. Stuttaford: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the establishment of this inquiry will give great pleasure to and allay many fears of those who are in favour of abortion law reform just as much as to those who are against it? Is he further aware that his reply about general practitioners will cause anxiety not only to general practitioners but to the general public, since a recent survey showed that the general public want and expect their general practitioner to give this advice? Is he aware that at the moment this service is curtailed because private prescriptions have to be used? If the E.C.10 could be used far more contraceptive advice could be given in general practitioners' surgeries, and accepted.

Sir K. Joseph: We are increasing the facilities throughout local government and hospital clinics for people who cannot afford the supplies involved. The Government see no reason for taking over from the vast majority of the public who are well able to seek advice and provide their own equipment if need be. The job is now done by general practitioners.

Sir D. Renton: Is my right hon. Friend aware that this most welcome and much-needed extension of the family planning service should help to relieve poverty and reduce the birth rate? Is he aware that much more will need to be done to stabilise the population over the next 30 years? Can he say when a decision will be made and announced about the Population Study Group to which the Prime Minister referred on 26th January?

Sir K. Joseph: That is a question for the Prime Minister. I would not like my right hon. and leaned Friend to delude himself into thinking that the increase in family planning is intended for population policy reasons. It is intended to increase family happiness and as such has an important contribution to make.

Mr. St. John-Stevas: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that his statement will be welcomed by hon. Members on all sides, particularly by those who think


it a crazy social policy to make abortion easy and family planning difficult? Can he assure the House that all interested parties, including the medical and nursing professions, will be able to give evidence at this inquiry?

Sir K. Joseph: I can certainly give my hon. Friend that assurance. We are lucky to have got so distinguished a Chairman for the inquiry.

Dr. Miller: Will the right hon. Gentleman tell us whether the position which he has outlined applies to Scotland; secondly, will he accept that the medical profession will welcome any kind of investigation into abortion? Is he further aware that we also welcome the fact that the Secretary of State has said categorically that the main conditions of the Act will not be affected? Can he tell me whether the position of voluntary bodies in family planning will be affected by the new proposals?

Sir K. Joseph: The abortion announcement was made on behalf of my right hon. Friends the Secretaries of State for Scotland and Wales as well as myself. Family planning policy was announced for Scotland by the Secretary of State for Scotland about two weeks ago. Family planning bodies will, I imagine, benefit from the increased resources available.

Mr. Crawshaw: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that many people like myself who support this Measure will welcome the inquiry because we are concerned about certain aspects of the policy? Would he tell the House whether this inquiry will alter the imbalance in certain parts of the country, particularly in the Liverpool area, where it is almost impossible to get an abortion because of opposition from certain people there?

Sir K. Joseph: It will be open to the inquiry to consider any evidence that is put before it, including that to which the hon. Gentleman refers.

Mrs. Knight: Will the inquiry be empowered to take evidence, preferably written, from women who have had abortions in the private sector as to the standard of care they received and, bearing in mind the implications of the tax position here, the sums of money that

they have been asked to hand over in cash?

Sir K. Joseph: That sort of question is entirely for the Committee, but as it has a Chairman who is a High Court judge I am sure that it will be able to handle such evidence, from whatever source.

Mr. Simon Mahon: Is the Minister aware that the House will be gratified by his statement? May we take it that there will be no religious embargo on membership of the Committee for the medical and nursing profession?

Sir K. Joseph: We shall seek objective members with suitable qualifications, obviously regardless of any religious background.

Mr. Biggs-Davison: While not accepting the morality as distinct from the legality of abortion, may I ask my right hon. Friend whether, pending the results of the inquiry, he will look very closely at applications for the licensing of abortion clinics having regard to the strong feeling of the clergy and many people in my constituency about the proposal for such a clinic at Buckhurst Hill?

Sir K. Joseph: I assure my hon. Friend that the Government will continue to examine very carefully all applications for further clinics.

Mrs. Shirley Williams: Before dealing with the right hon. Gentleman's very welcome announcement about the inquiry and the family planning matters, may I ask him why the B.B.C. carried on its one o'clock news a complete statement to the effect which the right hon. Gentleman has just given to the House? Will he bear out my view that it is very unfortunate for information to be given to the public through the mass media before it is given to the House?
We welcome the setting up of the committee of inquiry in view of certain disturbing features of the working of the Act. First, will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that a close look will be taken at the working of private clinics, and particularly the length of time which people spend in them, and the possibility of touting for custom? Secondly, referring to his announcement about family planning, can he confirm that domiciliary services will be made available in all


parts of the country because we on this side of the House share the view that it is much better to prevent unwanted births rather than abort them? Finally, will he consider making contraceptives available free of charge to those in need on social as well as medical grounds?

Sir K. Joseph: Contraceptives are already available on social grounds when the local authority judges fit and when the income is low.
I regret that the B.B.C. has, according to the hon. Lady, published my statement in advance. I referred as long ago as October to a pending Government announcement about family planning and I have answered a number of questions tabled by my hon. Friends about abortion, with the promise of an early statement. Therefore, it is not surprising that some decisions on this matter should have been expected. Certainly the inquiry—[Interruption]—The Order Paper today is peppered with Questions on this subject and it was not surprising that people should conclude that there might be a statement today. I shall certainly see whether there has been any "leak" of the crucial information.
The inquiry will be able to consider the practice of private clinics. The Government believe that the principal growth in family planning should come in giving advice in the home to those who, for one reason or another, are not able to take advantage of contraceptive methods.

Mr. Selwyn Gummer: While thanking my right hon. Friend for his comments on family planning matters and for setting up the inquiry, may I ask him whether I would be right in saying that the Committee will not be precluded from making comments on the essence of the Act if it felt that those comments were necessary?

Sir K. Joseph: I do not want to open up the subject which took so long to debate in the House originally, but obviously if the Committee felt trammelled by its terms of reference it would be able to write to me and say so.

Mr. Steel: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there will be a general welcome for the very carefully measured terms with which he made his announcement about the inquiry into the Abortion Act and that there is growing evidence that the great demand for abortions is

caused by a lack of family planning provisions? There will be a welcome for the fact that the right hon. Gentleman has linked the two subjects together.
Will the inquiry be able to look into some of the widely publicised allegations made against the working of the Abortion Act, some of which have been found by his Department to be totally unfounded?

Sir K. Joseph: Yes. One of the main values of the inquiry will be that it will separate truth from fiction. A number of statements have been made which the House would like to have examined.

Mr. C. Pannell: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the general satisfaction that the inquiry will proceed on the basis that the law will not be altered, bearing in mind that the overwhelming majority of this House voted in favour of the 1967 Act and that it is proper to emphasise the terrific social benefit which the Act has brought rather than its minor shortcomings which are insisted upon by those people who voted against it in the first place?

Sir K. Joseph: I think that the right hon. Gentleman is wrong to stoke up feeling on this issue. A number of hon. Members on both sides of the House would like to reopen the whole issue, but they have come together in welcoming an inquiry into the workings of the Act.

Following are the full terms of reference:
To review the operation of the Abortion Act, 1967, and, on the basis that the conditions for legal abortion contained in paragraphs (a) and (b) of subsection (1) and in subsections (2),(3) and (4) of Section 1 of the Act remain unaltered, to make recommendations.

FISHING VESSELS (GRANTS) SCHEME

Mr. Cledwyn Hughes: On a point of order. There stands on the Order Paper a Notice of Motion asking for approval for the amendment of the fishing vessels grants scheme, the effect of which would be to cut the rate of grant for new fishing vessels by 25 per cent. You will have noted, Mr. Speaker, that the Select Committee on Statutory Instruments drew the special attention of the House to the fact that the Government are acting ultra vires in seeking to proceed with the Scheme. My hon. Friends and I were concerned lest the Government should seek to pass


the Scheme in spite of the Select Committee's findings.
Can you advise the House, Mr. Speaker, whether it is in order for the Government to proceed with the Statutory Instrument which, on the face of it, is ultra vires the Sea Fisheries Act, 1968. Secondly, however you may rule on that point, Mr. Speaker, would it be in order for the Government to proceed with the Statutory Instrument before the House has had the opportunity to study the advice of the Select Committee?

Mr. Speaker: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for giving me notice of his point of order. He is certainly within his rights in objecting to a Notice of Motion on the Order Paper, although it is more usual to await the point at which the Motion is set down as one of the items of the day's business, but as the Motion appears among the remaining Orders of the Day and Notices of Motion I will deal with the point now.
It is quite true, as the right hon. Gentleman says, that the Select Committee on Statutory Instruments has drawn this Instrument to the special attention of the House for the reason given on the Notice Paper. The Speaker is, however, bound by the practice of the House and by Rulings given from the Chair on earlier occasions, and this practice shows that the Chair is not concerned with the merits of this or any other Motion. Provided that the Motion itself does not offend against the rules of the House, its legal effect or validity is not for the Speaker to interpret. These are matters for the House and the right hon. Gentleman will have his opportunity of arguing that the House should not approve the Schemes.
All I have to do as Speaker is to consider whether anything out of order would be taking place when the time comes for me to call on the Minister to move the Motion or when I propose the Question for approval to the House. There is nothing in the past practice which suggests that the Chair should intervene to prevent discussion of the Motion as it stands on the Order Paper.

Mr. Hughes: Further to that point of order. I am grateful for your Ruling, Mr. Speaker, and, of course, I accept it. But, as grave consequences may follow the passage of the Statutory Instrument

through the House before we have had the opportunity to look at the evidence of the Select Committee, would it be in order for me to suggest that the Leader of the House might indicate the Government's view on this extremely important point?

The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. William Whitelaw): Further to the point of order. I recognise the importance of the matter which the right hon. Member for Anglesey (Mr. Cledwyn Hughes) has raised and of the Ruling which you, Mr. Speaker, have given.
The Government will naturally, as all Governments have done in the past, take note of any Report from the Select Committee on Statutory Instruments. It is extremely important and the Government recognise the point which has been made. I believe that there is a satisfactory explanation which my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture could give in debate when the Statutory Instrument is put down. However, in view of what the right hon. Member for Anglesey has said, I will look into the matter. I will investigate to discover when the evidence will be available. The Scheme has not yet been put down for debate. Before it is, I will consult the right hon. Member for Anglesey.

Mr. Booth: On a point of order. I submit that the Select Committee on Statutory Instruments, in carrying out its duty to the House to examine this Scheme, has taken evidence relating not only to whether the form of the Scheme is correct, but whether the three Ministers concerned with the Scheme have met the requirement of the Sea Fisheries Act to consult the fishing boards before making any directives in connection with the laying of a new scheme. The Committee has taken evidence on whether the three Ministers concerned have prevented the boards from carrying out their statutory duties. You will accept, Mr. Speaker, that within the time limits laid down for a debate to approve such a Scheme, it would not be possible for the full explanations of these considerations to be given to the House in addition to the statements which hon. Members must make on the merits of the new Scheme.
Therefore, may I ask you, Mr. Speaker, as the Leader of the House has not


given us an assurance that the evidence of the Select Committee on Statutory Instruments will be published prior to the debate, that provision will be made for a statement on the considerations before the Select Committee on Statutory Instruments on this Scheme before the debate takes place?

Mr. Whitelaw: I am sorry, I have not made myself clear to the hon. Gentleman. I thought I did say—and if I did not I now say—that of course we shall not put down this Scheme for debate until the evidence of the Select Committee on Statutory Instruments has been published.

Mr. James Johnson: Further to that point of order. Three weeks ago the Leader of the House gave a personal assurance that he would consult the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food with a view to him making a statement. To say the least, he is somewhat dilatory. I hope that we shall get this statement at the earliest possible moment. All hon. Members representing fishing and boat-building constituencies view with the utmost alarm this 25 per cent. cut, and it is up to the Minister to give the House a firm, clear statement, particularly as he himself represents a fishing constituency.

Mr. Speaker: We are getting rather far from points of order.

Mr. Maclennan: Further to the point of order originally raised by my right hon. Friend the Member for Anglesey (Mr. Cledwyn Hughes). Is one to understand from the Leader of the House that the Minister of Agriculture has suggested that there is an explanation which will satisfy the House that the Instrument is proper? If this is not so and the House is dissatisfied, the Scheme will be in direct conflict with the findings of the Select Committee on Statutory Instruments and will place the whole fishing industry in extreme difficulties. This is a point of substance which calls for a statement from the Minister of Agriculture prior to the debate.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member has made his point, which was a point of argument.

QUESTIONS TO MINISTERS

Mr. William Hamilton: You may recall, Mr. Speaker, that following the supplementary questions and answers on

Question No. 4 the hon. and learned Member for Stoke Newington and Hackney (Mr. Weitzman) inadvertently said on a point of order that he would seek to raise the matter on the Adjournment, and you automatically excluded other hon. Members who had similar Questions on the Order Paper from asking supplementary questions. You may recall that Dr. King allowed such supplementary questions to be asked if he was satisfied that the hon. Member who asked the original Question was seeking to raise the matter on the Adjournment as an abuse to prevent other hon. Members from asking supplementary questions. My hon. Friend certainly was not consciously abusing the rules of procedure but did so inadvertently, and in those circumstances perhaps you would like to modify the Ruling which sought to exclude other hon. Members with similar Questions on the Order Paper.

Mr. Speaker: I will consider the point which the hon. Member put to me. He is inviting me to embark on rather dangerous ground. I think hon. and hon. and learned Members are assumed to know the logical consequences of their actions and their words, but I will consider what the hon. Member has said.

BILLS PRESENTED

IMMIGRATION

Mr. Secretary Maudling, supported by Secretary Sir Alec Douglas-Home, Secretary Sir Keith Joseph, Mr. Secretary Carr, Mr. Richard Sharples, and Mr. Attorney-General, presented a Bill to amend and replace the present immigration laws, to make certain related changes in the citizenship law and enable help to be given to those wishing to return abroad, and for purposes connected therewith: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time Tomorrow and to be printed. [Bill 117.]

TELEVISION LICENSING (ELDERLY PERSONS)

Mr. John Farr, supported by Mr. Alfred Morris, Mr. James Scott-Hopkins, and Mr. John Peel presented a Bill to authorise reduced television licence charges for old-age pensioners: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday, 19th March, and to be printed. [Bill 118.]

INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS BILL

[NINTH ALLOTTED DAY]

Considered in Committee [Progress, 17th February.]

[Sir ROBERT GRANT-FERRIES in the Chair]

Clause 114

NO COMPULSION TO WORK OR TO TAKE PART IN INDUSTRIAL ACTION

3.54 p.m.

Mr. Eric S. Heffer: I beg to move Amendment No. 854, in page 80, line 41, at end insert:
'nor shall an employee be fined, have his earnings attached or his property distrained or seized nor be imprisoned for failure to do any work or attend at any place for the purpose of doing any work'.

The chairman: I think it will be for the convenience of the Committee if we take also Amendment No.856, in page 81, line 4, at end insert:
() No court shall commit a person to prison for breach of any order made in proceedings brought under this Act.

Mr. Heffer: In the process of moving the Amendment may I be forgiven for making two comments which are of some importance? First, during last Thursday's debate the Prime Minister in his winding up speech made a comment to the effect that he thought that the Opposition should be have been more responsible and should have been more responsible and should not be tramping through the night voting against various Clauses. He then said that he should be discussing the Bill in greater detail. That is precisely what we asked to do. I am assuming that we shall now get from the Prime Minister or the Leader of the House an assurance that from now on every Clause will be properly debated and that sufficient time will be given for this. I trust that there will be a statement today to that effect.
Secondly, last week—

Captain Walter Elliot: On a point of order. I do not know if it is known, but proposals were made by my

right hon. Friend the Leader of the House to give extra time for debating the Bill if the Opposition would also give extra time. The Opposition refused to accept that offer and, as a result, the time has been curtailed. It was in that respect that my right hon. Friend —

The Chairman: Order. I am afraid the hon. and gallant Gentleman is not in order. This is not a point of order and has nothing to do with the Chair. The business of the House is arranged by the Government, in consultation with the Opposition, and the Chair has nothing to do with it.

Mr. Heffer: If I may comment on that without holding up the business of the Committee, what was being offered to my hon. Friends on this side of the House was nothing at all. We were being asked to give up far more days which would otherwise be available to us to debate other topics than the Government, who were not prepared to give up anything. We went out of our way to seek the fullest possible debate, and this was not allowed.

Captain W. Elliot: Mr. Chairman, you will recall that you said that I was out of order in raising this, but the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heifer) is raising just this issue.

The Chairman: It is customary for the spokesman for the Opposition to make certain brief comments. I have been well used to this practice in Standing Committee. The Chair must alone be the judge of whether those comments are brief. The hon. and gallant Member for Carshalton (Captain W. Elliot) sought to address me on a point of order, and that is what I ruled on as being strictly speaking out of order. Nevertheless, the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heller) is entitled to do what he is doing provided he is brief, and I am sure I can rely on him being so.

Mr. Heffer: Thank you, Sir Robert. I shall be very brief. I have completed my first comment. My second brief comment is that during last week's debates one or two hon. Members on the Government benches suggested that trade unionists were not behind the Opposition to the Bill but were behind the Government.

Hon. Members: Hear, hear.

4.0 p.m.

Mr. Heffer: Hon. Members opposite say "Hear, hear". I should like to draw their attention to the fact that at least 140,000 workers marched on Sunday against this Bill. Many other workers and their various representatives in the big cities and towns could mount a tremendous number of demonstrations in their areas, and will do as time goes on.

Mr. David Mitchell: rose—

Mr. Heifer: Of course I do not accept hon. Members opposite to agree with me. I know that they are not—

The Chairman: Order. I feel that we have reached a stage when the hon. Gentleman should take my advice, and I am sure that he will.

Mr. Heffer: I was just going to move on, Sir Robert. The object of the Amendment is simple—

Mr. David Mitchell: On a point of order. I do not wish to question the right of the Chair to choose a particular Amendment, but the situation here is unusual in that this Amendment seeks to delete a power which the Bill does not in fact contain. Is it in order for the Committee to waste time discussing an Amendment which cannot apply to this Bill?

The Chairman: That is a matter of argument, and in any case I have deemed the Amendment to be in order, which is a matter for me.

Mr. Heffer: It does not seek to delete anything. In fact it adds something. Obviously the hon. Gentleman has not read the Amendment, otherwise he would not have made such a ridiculous statement.
The Solicitor-General has said in Committee from time to time that no criminal proceedings will arise from the Bill when enacted. This is disputed. We have argued throughout that although criminal proceedings may not be brought civil proceedings could ultimately lead to criminal proceedings. We want it written into the Bill so that it will be absolutely clear that no employee should be fined, or should have his earnings attached, or should have his property

distrained or seized, or should be imprisoned for failing to do any work or attend at any place for the purpose of doing any work. As the Clause stands workers can go on strike, and undoubtedly will, though under certain circumstances they could be forced back to work. They have a right to go on strike but may be forced to pay compensation for taking strike action.
It is recognised, in spite of what the Secretary of State for Employment has said, that workers will take strike action. Whether they do so individually or collectively, this is bound to happen. We know this from experience at Betteshanger Colliery where, despite the fact that the law said workers should not take strike action, they in fact did so. What happened was that, in order to get a settlement of the dispute, negotiations had to take place with branch officials who were in prison. Therefore, there must be a recognition that when workers take action they will not be forced back to work.
Clause 114 is basically fraudulent. Workers who take strike action can be caught because they induce or aid and abet, or seek to finance action or indulge in all sorts of unfair industrial practices which may amount to an illegal strike. Therefore, the provision gives the trade union movement nothing. It does not amount to a row of beans. It is included in the Bill to give the impression that the Government are being fair to the trade union movement and to the workers at large.
The provision is also fraudulent because, although action can be taken in other parts of the Bill against workers for unfair industrial practices, it will be seen from Clauses 124 to 126 that the Secretary of State may apply to the Industrial Court for an order which can either defer or discontinue a strike for 60 days. If that is not ordering workers back to work, I do not know what is. That is doing precisely what the Clause says cannot be done. This is the situation the whole way through the Bill. One part of the Bill says one thing and another part of the Bill says something totally different. We do not have to be Philadelphia lawyers to understand the Bill. We need to be magicians. Certainly shop stewards will never understand it, nor indeed will most lawyers. To understand the Bill


we shall all need to take magicians' courses.
We believe that in order to make sense of the provision and to ensure that no action is taken against workers, the Government should accept our Amendment. I will not go into it further at this stage. We believe that it is a sensible, intelligent, brief Amendment which any sensible Government would accept. I only hope that on this occasion the Solicitor-General will show some semblance of sense and accept it.

Mr. Barney Hayhoe: Although I did not agree with the earlier remarks of the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heller), I was in considerable sympathy with him once he got on to his substantive points on the Amendment. I would agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke (Mr. David Mitchell) that this Amendment is unnecessary since the Bill does not seek to do the things that the Amendment wishes to make impossible. In other words, if I have any objection to the hon. Gentleman's Amendment it is because it is tautologous and not because it puts forward a basic argument with which I disagree.
Having expressed by general sympathy with the point of view of the hon. Gentleman, I must go on to say that I do not believe that the provisions of the Bill make it possible for any employee to be fined or be subjected to any of the other penalties outlined in the Amendment merely because he has failed to do any work or attend at any place for the purpose of doing any work. But if anyone induces others to take unfair action, it is possible under other provisions of the Bill for action to be taken against him. Obviously the hon. Gentleman and I may disagree about that but, dealing with the Amendment —[Interruption.] Possibly the hon. Member for Penistone (Mr. John Mendelson) does not want the Committee to deal with it, but I intend to do just that and say that, while I have great sympathy with the point of view expressed by the hon. Member for Walton, I hope very much that my hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor-General will be able to tell the Committee whether the Government see any problems arising from the Amendment

which I do not see. I shall be very pleased to hear my hon. and learned Friend's advice on the matter.

Mr. John Mendelson: True to form, the hon. Member for Heston and Isleworth (Mr. Hayhoe) is again acting as the Government's liberal figleaf. He offers my right hon. and hon. Friends tea and sympathy, and then votes with the Government.

Mr. Hayhoe: I am merely seeking the advice of my hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor-General. And looking back over the voting record of the hon. Member for Penistone in past years, I seem to remember that the hon. Gentleman was one of that army of paper tigers who often shouted against the actions of their Government but did not stand up for their principles in the Division Lobby.

Mr. John Fraser: As a result of this Bill, an employer and in certain circumstances the Secretary of State can adopt any one of a multiplicity of courses which ultimately will take the form of injunctions against workers not to commit certain acts. It is not disputed that the only way in which an injunction can be enforced is by means of the deterrent of imprisonment for contempt of court or, in certain circumstances, by means of fines.
No one can tell whether or not the effect of the Bill will be nugatory. It may be that few employers will take proceedings under the legislation. But if the Government intend to commit people to prison for contempt of court on orders made under this Measure, they will miss an enormous opportunity which was available and was taken by the previous Government to move towards a constructive improvement of our industrial relations. Perhaps the greatest absurdity lies in the fact that it will probably be argued that, in the last resort, people should be sent to prison in an attempt to get better industrial relations.
As the Bill stands at the moment, a person can be sent to prison without his having had the benefit of legal aid in the proceedings brought against him. I raised this matter on Second Reading. and I was promised a reply. I raised the matter again as a point of order last week, and I have now received a note about it. I


make no complaint about that. It underlines the difficulty in which the Government find themselves. They have truncated our discussions on the Bill to the point where it is not even possible to announce to the Committee decisions which should be announced in public. The fact remains, however, that, as the Bill stands at the moment, a person can be committed to prison without the advantage of being represented in the court proceedings leading up to his committal.

4.15 p.m.

Mr. Raymond Gower: Two sides of the Committee are very close in their approaches to this matter. But I would suggest to the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heller) that he underestimates the importance of this Clause. It raises no simple or unnecessary matter, and certainly it is not to be treated with scorn.
The Clause puts forward an assertion which has not appeared in previous legislation that no court shall compel anyone by an order or an injunction to take certain actions. Neither can it compel him not to strike. The hon. Gentleman suggest that the provision is whittled down in other parts of the Bill. The fact remains, however, that its inclusion in the legislaiton is significant. and I hope that he will not disparage its importance in what I trust will be an Act of Parliament.
It is a provision which is quite different from any that we have had before in legislation, and it goes beyond any provisions intended for inclusion in any similar legislation projected by the prevous Government.
Despite what the hon. Gentleman said, nothing in this legislation creates a crime in any sense. He implied that, although the word "crime" is not used, there is created some sort of middle world. It is not merely a civil offence but some kind of pseudo-crime.
The Bill contains no criminal provision and, in view of that, the inclusion of the words proposed in the Amendment would be inappropriate in the context of this Clause. The hon. Gentleman suggests that we should add words to the effect that no employee shall be fined. I cannot see how the penalties referred to in the Bill could result in a fine.
As the hon. Member for Norwood (Mr. John Fraser) rightly said, there is another territory which is neither civil nor criminal where a flagrant disregard would amount to contempt of court. However, that does not arise from any of these provisions. The Bill is not a criminal one. It includes no criminal provisions. In that, it is markedly different from the legislation contemplated by the previous Government, who were prepared to introduce criminal provisions and sanctions against the individual to which they now object.
We do not contemplate those kinds of sanctions and, while I, like my hon. Friend the Member for Heston and Isle-worth (Mr. Hayhoe), sympathise with the idea behind the Amendment, it is not appropriate in the setting of this Clause and the context of the Bill. I repeat that it is not a criminal Measure. There can be a flagrant disregard amounting to contempt of court, but that has nothing to do with anything contained in the Bill.

Mr. Stanley Orme: The concluding words of the subsection read:
… compel an employee to do any work or to attend at any place for the purpose of doing any work.
In my view, it should go on to the possibility of his being brought before an industrial court and fined and, if necessary, imprisoned, because that is exactly what can happen.
It is extraordinary that we have arrived at the stage where it is necessary to write into the Bill words which in effect say that there can be no direction of labour. It should not be necessary to try to offset the provisions contained in previous Clauses. As my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heifer) pointed out, numerous Clauses are relevant to this matter. I have in mind Clauses 5,124,125 and 126, to cite but a few of them.
The Solicitor-General should recognise, having had the guillotine the other night, that we are now coming on to the industrial court. This Clause flows from Clause 89 onwards with the setting up of the legal paraphernalia. The constraints upon trade unionists will be evident from reading these Clauses. We could have a situation—I think that the Solicitor-General should inform the


Committee about this—where a shop steward, for instance, instructed to use his best endeavours and refusing to do so, could be brought before the court and fined, refuse to pay the fine, have his goods or property distrained, damages, and, in the final analysis, imprisonment.
This situation arises from equating trade unionists with criminals. A court procedure is being set up to discipline industrial workers not for breaking the common law, not for taking part in larceny or any other common crime for which anyone is liable, but to say to a certain section of workers—it is only a certain section—"You are liable under the terms of the law and of the High Court which has been set up to certain fines and constraints which are not applicable to every citizen in this country."
The legal aspects within the terms of the Bill are a complete departure from British law as we understand it. It is applicable to a certain section of the electorate, the industrial working force, not to the whole population. These are the kind of things which face us. The more we get into the legal involvements, the more we see the constraints which will be inflicted on industrial workers.

Mr. Gower: May I ask the hon. Gentleman to consider this point? If I run my car into his, does the hon. Gentleman appreciate that I could be brought before two courts: one for the criminal or pseudo-criminal action of driving badly or without due care, and the other, the civil court, to which I could be brought by the hon. Gentleman for causing damage to his car? Does the hon. Gentleman see no distinction between the two?

Mr. Orme: Being surrounded by distinguished lawyers, I shall not try to interpret the British law. I heard three Q.C.s at the beginning of the debate try to define two words—

Mr. Kevin McNamara: Five Q.C.s.

Mr. Orme: My hon. Friend says "Five Q.C.s". However, each one arrived at a different definition, including the right hon. and learned Member for Hertfordshire, East (Sir D.Walker-Smith).
We on this side feel that any form of criminal proceedings against trade union-

ists through the setting up of these industrial courts by way of fines is completely obnoxious. We are completely opposed to it. I should like to hear the Solicitor-General justify his case on this matter.

Sir Derek Walker-Smith: I had not intended to intervene in the debate. I do so only in the hope of contributing my widow's mite to clearing up certain misapprehensions or misconceptions which seem to exist in some of the speeches which have been made.
The hon. Member for Salford, West (Mr. Orme), who has been a diligent and useful contributor to debates in Committee, said that the objection here was that trade unionists were being treated as criminals. That is not so. There are no criminal provisions or sanctions in the Bill.
The Committee will appreciate that, as my hon. Friend the Member for Barry (Mr. Gower) has usefully reminded us, there are two different sections of our law—criminal and civil.
The criminal code works by way of imposition of fines or prison sentences. The civil code works by the award of damages for breach of contract, for civil wrong suffered, for a declaration of rights, or for an injunction to restrain the committing of a civil wrong. There is, therefore, a clear dichotomy between the criminal and the civil law.

Mr. Orme: I understand the definition which the right hon. and learned Gentleman has just given. However, is it not a fact that a trade unionist at the end of the day could still be imprisoned for not operating under the terms of the Bill.

Sir D. Walker-Smith: I am coming to that in the pattern of the submission which I am putting to the Committee.
There being that dichotomy between the two branches of the law, the Bill follows, as I have observed in more detail on previous occasions in Committee, the civil pattern.
We find it best and most clearly set out in Clause 90(3) where three forms of civil remedy are prescribed as within the jurisdiction of the court on a complaint having been made. With a certain difference of nomenclature, those remedies


follow the civil pattern as I have just described it.

Mr. Heffer: What the right hon. and learned Gentleman is saying is absolutely correct. But in Schedule 2, paragraph 25 deals with enforcement. Paragraph 25 then points out,
… the Industrial Court shall have the like powers, rights, privileges and authority—
(a) in England and Wales, as the High Court".
It can therefore impose a fine for contempt of court. Paragraph 26 states:
In relation to any fine imposed by the Industrial Court for contempt of that court, section 14 of the Criminal Justice Act 1945 and section 47 of the Criminal Justice Act 1967… shall have effect".
Whilst it is true that the principle within the Bill is based upon civil proceedings, at a certain point such proceedings can be transformed into criminal proceedings. That is the point which we are making.

Sir D. Walker-Smith: The hon. Gentleman ought to follow the matter through. The remedies given in the Bill are analogous to civil remedies, as we see from Clause 90(3) which states,
an order determining the rights"—
which is the same as a declaration given by the High Court as part of its civil jurisdiction—" … an award of compensation "—which is analogous to damages given by the High Court in its civil jurisdiction, and
… an order directing the respondent to refrain from continuing to take that action—
which is analogous to an injunction given by the High Court.
So we start from the proposition that there are no criminal provisions as such in the Bill. They are purely civil provisions designed to give remedies for breaches of contract—for example, breaches of contract of legally enforceable collective agreements which may be agreed to be under the new law.
We then come to the point which seems to be worrying hon. Gentlemen—namely, a defiance of the law. Suppose a man says, "You may whistle for your damages",or, "Despite the injunction, I propose to disobey it". We then come to the branch of the law which has been referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Barry (Mr. Gower), the branch known as contempt. Contempt is not

part of the criminal jurisdiction. Contempt is the necessary residual power that any court must have if it is to be effective.

4.30 p.m.

Mr. Paul B. Rose: Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman not aware—it is interesting—that as recently as 1969 Lord Denning, in Re Bramblevale Ltd., said:
A contempt of court is an offence of a criminal character.
There is a great deal of judicial authority to support the view that a contempt of court is either criminal or quasi-criminal. Whether it is quasi-criminal, criminal or even civil, the result is the same—gaol.

Sir D. Walker-Smith: The hon. Gentleman is to some extent bandying words, and when he refers to judgments of Lord Denning that is rather like where we came in, because it was another judgment of Lord Denning which we were debating the other night, and the hon. Gentleman and I must resist every temptation to turn this Committee stage into a moot, otherwise we shall become very unpopular with those hon. Members who are not lawyers.
We need not be semantic about it. It is clearly not criminal. I can see the force of what the hon. Gentleman says in his reference to quasi-criminal, though he will not find that that is a term of art within English law. It might be said to be quasi-criminal in that it is, in a sense, coercive, but every residual power which a court has to enforce its jurisdiction must of its nature be coercive to some extent.

Mr. Orme: That is the point.

Sir D. Walker-Smith: This is where was pass the argument to the other side. We are dealing with Clause 114. We have passed Clause 90. Whether hon. Gentlemen opposite like it or not—I appreciate that they do not—at this stage of the Bill we have to go on the assumption, the Committee having passed it by a majority, that Clause 90 will be good law.

Mr. Sidney Bidwell: Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman agree that it is a very sad set of circumstances? Who is responsible for the fact that we have not discussed the intervening circumstances and the position of the courts?

Sir D. Walker-Smith: We have had many references to Clause 90 in our debates, as the hon. Gentleman, who has been reasonably assiduous in his attendances during the Committee stage, will recall. It is not one of the Clauses which unfortunately has been omitted from all discussion under the Bill. [Interruption.] —I have given way many times to hon. Gentlemen who have risen in their places. Perhaps I might be excused from sedentary interventions.

Mr. Harold Walker: As the right hon. and learned Gentleman in that way invites me to make a standing interruption, I would ask him to point out to the Committee that it is no fault of this side but entirely a consequence of the Government's slapping on the guillotine that we have not exposed the iniquities of Clause 90.

Sir D. Walker-Smith: I understand the hon. Gentleman's feelings, but I wonder whether that intervention was worth taking up the time of the Committee. Whether or not that Clause received as much discussion as it should, it has been adopted by the Committee; and the hon. Gentleman must face the facts of life. After all, we are practical people. There is a strong presumption that, however long it had been debated, when it was divided upon it would have been carried, and by this time, therefore, that Clause is part of the Bill.
We have to proceed at this stage on the assumption that there is a power in the Industrial Court to make the orders. Having reached that stage, I must pass the argument back to the other side. I ask them, that being the case, how they would propose that the court would enforce its orders, supposing that there is a refusal to abide by them. Surely hon. Gentlemen are not contemplating a situation in which a court is set up and it has no power of enforcement for its orders. If they are proposing that, the position is clear and different. They are proposing an entire departure from the rule of law under the shadow of which this country has dwelt so long. This is the logic of it. They would be proposing a system of anarchy in which, if a person refuses to obey the order of the court, there is nothing that the court can do about it, and that if an order for compensation is made those in whose favour

the order is made can whistle for the compensation to be paid.

Mr. Orme: It is not a semantic argument. We have gone through this matter on this side previously, and, like the right hon. and learned Gentleman, we have arrived at the same position. We cannot impose the law without having some sanction, and ultimately that must be prison. Why does not the right hon. and learned Gentleman admit that at the end of the day, be the law criminal or otherwise, the result would be gaol if the law is defied?

Sir D. Walker-Smith: If one defies the law there must be a sanction, and the ultimate sanction is committal, as part of the law on contempt. On the other hand, it differs from an ordinary sentence of imprisonment passed as part of the criminal jurisdiction in a very important respect. If a person is awarded a criminal sentence, that is a fixed term which he must serve. But a person committed as a last resort for defiance of an order of a court under its inherent jurisdiction of contempt is committed only for so long as his contempt endures. When he purges his contempt, he comes out. [Laughter.]
Hon. Gentlemen laugh, but that shows how little thought they have given to the matter. If they gave half as much time to thinking about the Bill as they have done to speaking, they would not laugh but would realise what a bad point they are on.

Mr. John Prescott: The right hon. and learned Gentleman is putting points about the logic of the legal situation, and the use of a sanction by the court against those who openly breach its decision. That brings to mind a situation which I was involved in in 1960, the Seamen's strike, in which my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) was also very much involved, when a seaman came before the court for contempt of court arising out of a case in which an injunction has been sought. He could have been released from the court if he had apologised to it and agreed not to continue the action of asking men to stay on strike. But the man stayed in gaol. A whole new issue now arose because a striker had been sent to gaol.


It was no longer a simple issue of the seamen's dispute, or whether it was a contempt of court, be it criminal or civil, but the fact that a man in a dispute had been sent to gaol and the men would refuse to go back until that man had been brought out of the court's jurisdiction. What we are concerned about is not necessarily the legal logic involved, but what will happen in industrial disputes.

Sir D. Walker-Smith: It is not a question of what will happen in industrial disputes qua industrial disputes. Nobody goes to gaol or went to gaol because of participation in an industrial dispute. He goes to there for contempt of court—that is, for defiance of an order of the court—pending such time as he purges his contempt, which is legal language for obeying the order of the court. If a person prefers, as John Hampden did, to defy the order of the court, he wears the martyr's crown and gets a place in history. But you cannot have it all ways. John Hampden got the martyr's crown because he went inside.

Mr. Dan Jones: I accept the right hon. and learned Gentleman's legal argument, but can he believe that the ordinary man in the street can ever hope to understand this?

Sir D. Walker-Smith: That is a good question. I will answer it as best I may. The ordinary man in the street can understand the basic proposition that if we are to have—as we have—the privilege of living under the rule of law there must be a means of enforcement in the last resort of the orders of the properly constituted courts, because that is the essential and indispensable prerequisite of the rule of law.
Many men may say that in their view a particular law is not as they wish it to be. In a democratic society—this is the other aspect of our free institutions—they are free to say so and to agitate for the reform of that law. Once this law is on the Statute Book hon. Members opposite will be entitled to continue to agitate for the reform and revision of this law. However, while the law is on the Statute Book it must be obeyed; and it can be obeyed only if in the last resort there is a sanction to uphold the rule of law.
That is all that is happening. Nobody wants anybody to be committed for contempt of court. It is a long stop. It is

the last residual power. It operates only while the order of the court is being held in defiance.
I must pass the argument to the other side and invite them to cite any single instance known to them of any form of law in Britain which does not have the sanction of enforcement in the last resort by proceedings for contempt of court. If that be so, they must show why and how there can be any difference here.
I had a great deal of sympathy for what was said by the hon. Member for Norwood (Mr. John Fraser) on an Amendment which has not been selected. Perhaps I can say something now on the same point rather than wait until the Question, That the Clause stand part of the Bill. It would be a happy thing if there could be some provision for the extension of legal aid, more particularly as some of these cases affect individuals. So far as I am concerned this is a new application of a point I have previously made as to the desirability of legal aid in many of the sorts of proceedings which have grown up in a modern society and which are just as important to the individual taking part as the ordinary, orthodox, traditional proceedings for which legal aid is right. It is very right that the consideration should be given to this point.

The Solicitor-General (Sir Geoffrey Howe): Perhaps I may be allowed to say this to my right hon. and learned Friend on that last point. I speak subject to your own ruling, Sir Robert. If the opportunity arises in the debate on the Question, That the Clause stand part of the Bill, I hope to deal with the point about legal aid which has been raised by my right hon. and learned Friend and by the hon. Member for Norwood (Mr. John Fraser). I had understood that to discuss the point on this Amendment without the selection of the intervening one would have been tempting fate perhaps too far.

Sir D. Walker-Smith: I am obliged to my hon. and learned Friend and I shall certainly look forward with great interest to hearing what he has to say.

[Miss HARVIE ANDERSON in the Chair]

4.45 p.m.

Mr. Emlyn Hooson: I suppose it is cold comfort to a person


lying in prison to know that he is lying there for contempt of court and not because he has committed a criminal offence. The prison is still as unpleasant and as cold or as hot as the case may be.
The right hon. and learned Member for Hertfordshire, East (Sir D. Walker-Smith) is absolutely right in saying that there is no criminal sanction in the Bill. Nevertheless, he touched on the nub of the matter. The matter that is under dispute on a principle is whether there should be this long stop—this eventual sanction—and whether it is apt for the matters which are the subject matter of the Bill.
The Amendment would not remove the provision about imprisoning or fining for contempt of court. The Amendment is concerned only with an employee, and not with a trade union official. I should have thought that in this context the trade union official might require more protection than the employee.
The Amendment says:
nor shall an employee be fined, have his earnings attached or his property distrained or seized nor be imprisoned for failure to do any work or attend at any place for the purpose of doing any work".
The matter on which the vote will be taken, as I understand it, would not in any way remove the sanction of imprisonment or fine for contempt of court.

Ronald King Murray: indicated assent.

Mr. Hooson: I am glad to see that the hon. and learned Member for Edinburgh, Leith (Mr. Murray) is in agreement.
Though the debate has ranged over the principle of the matter, it has been misconceived, because the matter that is objected to, namely contempt, is not covered by the Amendment. Amendment No. 856 would remove the sanction of imprisonment or contempt of court, but it would not remove the sanction of a fine.
To appreciate the position fully it is necessary to look at what the Clause is intended to achieve. The Clause seeks to put it beyond a peraventure that the traditional common law attitude that a man cannot be forced by an order for specific performance to carry out a contract of service cannot be changed; and

nothing in the Bill enables a court to enforce a contract of service, nor indeed to grant an injunction to restrain a breach of a contract of service. This has been the common law tradition in Britain. Over the years the judges have always taken this view.
As I understand the proposal—this is where the Solicitor-General's explanation can be of great value—it is not intended that in future any man shall be forced, by specific performance or otherwise, to carry out a contract of service; and it is not the Government's intention to force him by means of a fine or imprisonment to do so either.
Therefore, I see no reason why the Government should not accept Amendment No. 854, because no question of principle arises. A question of principle certainly arises on Amendment No. 856, because the principle is brought into question there.
On this matter there is a plain difference between the right hon. and learned Member for Hertfordshire, East, who very succinctly argued that there must be a long stop and an eventual sanction for the law, and those who have spoken from this side and who do not think that there should be any sanction in the way of action for contempt.

Mr. Orme: That is not what he said. In fact, we say that the whole thing is ludicrous, that we do not want it but that there must be a long stop if it is going to operate, which can mean prison.

Mr.Hooson: I understand that the hon. Gentleman is saying, "If the Bill is passed I accept that a long stop is necessary, but because I object to the Bill, I object also to this, because it illustrates the ludicrous position to which the Bill is leading us. Therefore, the debate goes to the heart of the Bill, the principle of the matter." But I am not sure that it does. Many judges and legal writers in recent years have attacked the very idea of contempt of court and have said that it is not necessary to have this eventual sanction. It is very sparingly used these days. Perhaps the Solicitor-General can tell us the figures, but very few people every year are sent to prison or fined for contempt of court.
One must ask, even if the Bill is passed, is this blunt instrument necessary at the


end, or is it, for the purposes of a Bill dealing with industrial relations, much better to do without it? The British, whatever is said in the House and whatever heat may be engendered on both sides, are a very law-abiding people.

Mr. Orme: This is bringing the law into disrespect.

Mr. Hooson: In my view, an eventual long stop sanction is not necessary and adds nothing to the eventual value of the Bill, whatever that may be.

Mr. John Page: Before the hon. and learned Gentleman sits down, would he confirm that the long stop exists in our present law, including trade union law, of committal for contempt? Does it apply therefore to the enactments to be repealed in Schedule 8?

Mr. Hooson: Of course it does. Contempt applies in the divorce court as well. If a person goes to prison for contempt, no criminal conviction is recorded against him. Some of our great martyrs have been imprisoned for contempt of court. They may be right: this is one way of challenging the principle—[Interruption.] I know that the hon. Member for Salford, West (Mr. Orme) is anxious to be the first martyr in this cause; what I am anxious to do is save the country from his martyrdom. We have reached the stage of society at which I do not believe that the long stop is necessary in proceedings like this.

Mr. David Mitchell: Clause 114 is designed primarily as protection for workers and to ensure that a court cannot force them to return to work. It therefore seems extraordinary that we should have had this afternoon speeches of this sort—speeches which were no doubt made in constituencies, to trades council meetings and to union meetings in preparation for that great rally in Trafalgar Square when I per cent. of the trade union movement came to register their protest. I am not surprised that they should do so, in view of the wild distortions with which they have been fed.
When I heard the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heifer) talking about equating the trade unionists with criminals—

Mr. Dan Jones: Of course they are, if they can go to jail.

Mr. Mitchell: I see nowhere in the whole Bill a provision to invoke the criminal law—certainly not in a Clause which specifically says that a court cannot order a man to go back to work. As my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Hertfordshire, East (Sir D. Walker-Smith) said, there are none so blind as those who will not see—

Mr. Jones: That is obvious.

Mr. Mitchell: That also applies to the hon. Member, who obviously does not want to read the Clause. But he went on to talk about the imposing of fines, which the Bill does not, and constraints, which it does, on the unions and a section of the working force, but not the rest of our people. I would ask where in any other activity of life—in commercial life, in one's daily life or in driving—there are not in the end constraints if one defies the accepted standards of society. It seems reasonable when bargains are made between a union and an employer that there should be the same constraints to see that those bargains are kept.
I should have thought that the Government would accept Amendment No. 854. This is not the first time, to my great surprise, that I have found myself nodding in agreement with much that the hon. Member for Walton has had to say. But to accept the Amendment would breach Donovan and existing legislation. This must be the argument which prevents by hon. and learned Friend from accepting the Amendment. It has no bearing on the Bill at all, as I tried to suggest earlier, but I understand that there is in law at this time a liability upon an individual to comply with his personal contract of service. If he fails to do so, he is liable under the existing law.
I am aware that that existing law is not used, that employers, although they have the right, do not use it, but this matter does not arise simply on this Bill.

Mr. Hooson: Surely, at present, under a contract of service a man is liable for damages only if he breaches it.

Mr. Mitchell: I am grateful to the hon. and learned Gentleman for confirmation of my point, that under existing legislation, which the Labour Party never sought to repeal, this Amendment would


interfere in that field. It does not apply within the context of the Bill.
The Amendment refers to
… failure to do any work or attend at any place for doing any work.
But there is nothing in the Bill to force a man to do any work or attend at any place to do any work, so in terms of this Bill, the Amendment is completely unnecessary.
But I am not surprised that it was the hon. Member for Walton who moved this Amendment rather than his right hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mrs. Castle). It would have been very difficult for her, in view of what she said should be the situation in "In Place of Strife". Paragraph 62 of that document said that a new industrial board
—will have power to impose financial penalties on an employer, union or individual striker —".
No such penalities appear in the Bill. [Interruption.] I think that I have the agreement of the hon. Member for Penistone (Mr. John Mendelson), without embarrassing him—that he, too, would find what his right hon. Friend proposed when in office wholly unacceptable. Therefore, I understand her not being present to lead the attack on this part of the Bill.
That extract from "In Place of Strife" went on:
… financial penalities on an employer, union or individual striker as it found appropriate; and those penalties would be recoverable in England and Wales only in the appropriate County Court by attachment of earnings and other civil remedies for the collection of debts, and procedures with similar effect will apply in Scotland.
In view of that blockbuster which the right hon. Lady wanted embodied in our legislation, I fail to see how hon. Members opposite can have the effrontery to walk into the Division Lobby.

Mr. Heifer: We are getting tired in the Committee of hon. Members constantly reading out chunks of "In Place of Strife"—[An HON. MEMBER: "Because it is embarrassing."] It is not a bit embarrassing, for this reason—that "In Place of Strife" never became a Bill. It was a document which was discussed in the House, with the T.U.C., with the Parliamentary Labour Party and with the

Labour Party generally. Arising out of those discussions, which hon. Gentlemen opposite were not prepared to enter into with the T.U.C., the Bill which was before the House contained none of the provisions which the hon. Gentleman is saying it did contain.

5.0 p.m.

Mr. Mitchell: I am fascinated by that comment, which I anticipated would come from the hon. Member or one of his hon. Friends because they were the means by which the "In Place of Strife" proposals were shot down. However, to say that the right hon. Member for Blackburn or the then Under-Secretary did not take that view is to twist the facts.
The central theme of the Budget statement made by the then Chancellor in the spring of 1969 was that there would be legislation on industrial relations along the lines of "In Place of Strife". It passes all imagination how hon. Gentlemen opposite now have the gall to put forward an Amendment of this kind when the Labour Government of those days proposed financial penalties, recoverable through the courts, allowing for the attachment of earnings and for smaller penalties which do not apply to the individual under this Measure. It is against this background that one can describe the speeches that have been made by hon. Gentlemen opposite today as extraordinary and exaggerated.

Mr. John Mendelson: The hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Hooson), who I am glad to see in his place, graces our debates when he can-that is, when the other activities in which he engages are concluded. Then he comes here, and today, being the only representative of the Liberal Party in attendance, we welcome him.
The other day his hon. Friend the Member for Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebles (Mr. David Steel) moved an Amendment which was designed to protect people who argued for those who are rather far removed from these shores and I supported him in this. He is not here today to try to support those who argue that his constituents and British working people generally should not have to go to prison by whatever process-I will come to the various processes — I will come to the various processes shortly —finally emerges from the Bill. This


notable absence of Liberal hon. Members should not escape the notice of the Committee. We must, accordingly, take the remarks of the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery with a pinch of salt.

Mr. Hooson: I trust that the hon. Gentleman appreciates that there is present today a higher proportion of my party than of the Labour Party.

Mr. Mendelson: That is not novel. I have heard the hon. and learned Gentleman whisper it several times during these proceedings. He cannot deny, however, that if a party votes for a Bill, it has a duty to support the various arguments that are adduced in its favour.
The hypocrisy of Liberal hon. Members is that, because they thought they were in the midst of a favourable wind, they wanted to be seen to be sailing with the Tories in clobbering the trade unions. They are now running away from defending the penalties which the Tories are proposing to impose on working people. My hon. Friends and I shall remind the Committee and the country at every stage of the line that the Liberals took on this Measure. I have done that for today.
Leaving aside the crocodile tears that have been wept by some hon. Gentlemen opposite, like the hon. Member for Barry (Mr. Gower), who wish to be heard as friends of the trade union movement when the occasion arises and when it suits them, I come immediately to the charge that my hon. Friends never did anything about these issues when we felt that certain proposals of the Labour Government were not in the best interests of the trade union movement. We certainly did do something. and that is why, when our Bill came before the House in April, May and June of last year, minus any penal Clauses, it was a first-class Measure which contained provisions which were designed solely to strengthen the trade union movement and ensure industrial peace.
We are today discussing not merely the incidence of this legislation on our constituents but what is purported to be the purpose of the Government, which is to establish a simple and efficient way of working in British industry. The right hon. and learned Member for Hertfordshire, East (Sir D. Walker-Smith), to whom we always listen with great respect and welcome to our debates, did not say

anything about that because he claims to want to discuss these provisions against the background of real life.
We agree with the right hon. and learned Gentleman in that these matters must be considered in real life terms. However, we cannot go with him when he says that this legislation will mean good law and that we should not be bothering ourselves with the consequences of what will be good law. Indeed, this point of it being good law is one of the main issues that we face and is a primary factor to these debates.
The Government are misleading the country by pretending that there will be better and more efficient industrial relations as a result of the Bill. This is the fraud that they are committing on public opinion, and if hon. Gentlemen opposite had been in the march with us over the weekend, instead of hiding their prejudices at home by the fireside, they would know precisely what my hon. Friends and I have in mind.
Had they been with us they would have known what the audience in Trafalgar Square were saying and they would not have made some of the ignorant remarks that we have heard from hon. Gentlemen opposite about that demonstration. For example, I do not agree with the suggestion that the average man will not understand what the lawyers were saying in this context. The workers understand only too well what this Bill is designed to do, and the Government should not kid themselves about that.

Mr. Tom King: The hon. Gentleman says that people generally know what the Bill is about. He will be aware of the pamphlets and propaganda that have been issued on this subject. Would he say that the pamphlet issued by, for example, S.O.G.A.T. was an accurate representation of the Bill?

Mr. Mendelson: I was talking about the people who were surrounding me at the Trafalgar Square demonstration. They understand what the Bill is designed to do and the Government should not underestimate their understanding of it. Indeed, Peter Jenkins ended his article on Monday by warning the Government not to underestimate the sense of fair play which exists among the people. That is precisely the point I am making.
The hon. and learned Member for Montgomery is correct to say that even the passing of this Amendment would not remove the obnoxious and unfair industrial practices and consequences that would flow from these provisions. Nor does it matter whether the courts are applying these legal sanctions frequently or infrequently. We and the T.U.C. are asking that the ordinary activities of working people at their places of work should not be made subject to these provisions. We are not concerned with the number of cases that may or may not arise.
Indeed, I can imagine many employers who will never wish to implement whole parts of the Bill, who already regard it as an idiot's paradise and who have no sympathy for the speeches that we have heard from the Solicitor-General. We are here to make law and it is the duty of this Committee, which is supposed to be comprised of responsible people, to make good and fair law.
Neither we on this side nor the trade union movement recognise as unfair industrial practices the activities so described in the various provisions of the Bill, but, by those provisions, and under the guise of not invoking the criminal law, the Government are trying to slip in further provisions the consequence of which will be that, after actions for damages have been brought, there will in the end be a number of people sent to prison.
Does anyone think that good industrial relations can come out of that? We must give the most careful attention to the way in which we conduct our public business. Nothing could be better calculated to put this country into turmoil and growing industrial strife than for just one person, let alone a number, to be condemned and sent to prison as a result of his not fulfilling an order of the court because of something which he regards as the normal activity of a trade unionist.

Mr. Orme: Does my hon. Friend recall that in this country—we have had reference to the Betteshanger case—in Southern Ireland in 1967, and in Australia in 1968, the imprisonment of trade unionists led to virtual national stoppages? Would not the same thing happen again in this country?

Mr. Mendelson: I am obliged to my hon. Friend for his apposite intervention.
I turn to just one part of Clause 90, a Clause which the Committee was prevented from discussing but to which the right hon. and learned Gentleman rightly referred in passing during his speech. Subsection (3)(c) reads:
an order directing the respondent to refrain from continuing to take that action, and to refrain from taking any other action of a like nature in relation to the complainant.
This is an indication of the coercion to be exercised against, say, a group of men who have come out on strike in solidarity with one of their fellow workers who has been wrongly dismissed. What will the consequence be? Either there will be large-scale contempt for the law, or one will have to use legal sanctions against, say, 3,000 people, ordering them back to work when they do not want to be at work. This is in plain contradiction of Clause 114, which provides that no one should be forced to work where and when he does not want to work. It is utter nonsense.
The right hon. and learned Gentleman, with his experience of Government, is failing in his duty to the Committee, I submit, if he ignores all these realities of life and makes things easy for himself, as he did this afternoon—he does not usually do it—in giving us a short dissertation, as though we were a first-term audience at law school, on the distinction between the criminal and the civil law. The right hon. and learned Gentleman failed in his duty to the Committee because, while we are accustomed to confusion and bad law from the Treasury Bench, at least we look to him for a reasonable attempt to meet the requirements of the occasion. But that he has failed to do.
We on this side know full well that we cannot by an Amendment of this kind remove at one sweep the obnoxious legal implications of the Bill, but we do right to move the Amendment so as to highlight to our party, to the Conservative Party, to the trade union movement, to Parliament and to the country that we are not prepared to accept, under the guise of simple provisions, the destruction of established trade union rights. This is what the 100,000 demonstrated about on Sunday, and it is what we are protesting about now.

Mr. David Waddington: I associate myself with the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke (Mr. David Mitchell). I, too, consider that we are entitled to ask whether the posture adopted by the Opposition Front Bench is genuine, and we are entitled to remind the country of the long history behind this Measure.
We look somewhat askance at the names appearing in support of the Amendment. I note with some amazement that the name of the right hon. Lady the Member for Blackburn (Mrs. Castle) heads the list, and the second name, along with the rest, is that of her lieutenant, the hon. Member for Doncaster (Mr. Harold Walker).
5.15 p.m.
This is an odd state of affairs. Whereas nowhere in the Bill can one find any provision which would allow the Industrial Court or the National Industrial Relations Court to fine strikers or union officials, not very long ago the right hon. Lady was proposing that strikers should be fined. My hon. Friend quoted one passage from "In Place of Strife", and I shall shortly quote another, but before coming to that I shall reply to the point made—

Mr. Heller: rose—

Mr. Waddington: I wish to reply to the totally false point made by the hon. Member for Walton (Mr. Heifer) a few minutes ago. He said that the White Paper—these were his words—did not contain a Bill. That is an extraordinary assertion. The White Paper contained the framework of a Bill.

Mr. Heffer: rose—

Mr. Waddington: The hon. Gentleman need not get so excited. I shall give way in a moment. The White Paper contained the framework of a Bill. At the beginning of paragraph 93, there appear these words:
It is for this reason that the Government will seek to reinforce, through the Industrial Relations Bill, the machinery of consultation which already exists".

Mr. Heffer: It is important to put these things in perspective, and it is important that the country should know the truth, because hon. Members opposite are trying to create confusion. Certainly, there was the White Paper, "In Place of Strife",

but there was no Bill based upon the White Paper. There were discussions, both on detail and on principle—discussions which the Government have refused to accept here—and on the basis of those discussions the Bill which did come before the House, although it related to a good deal in "In Place of Strife", did not contain many of the proposals in "In Place of Strife". Hon. Members opposite must know that. It is a sign of their bankruptcy of argument that, instead of defending their own Bill, on each occasion they bring in "In Place of Strife", having nothing to say for their own Bill because they cannot defend it.

Mr. David Mitchell: May I intervene? I wonder whether the hon. Member for Walton—

The Deputy Chairman: Order. The hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. Waddington) gave way to the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heifer). We cannot have an intervention upon an intervention.

Mr. Waddington: If my hon. Friend will allow me to proceed, I wish to take up the point made by the hon. Member for Walton, who, apparently, does not want to confuse the Committee by reference to the real facts. The whole course of this debate shows how hon. Members opposite, wittingly or unwittingly, are confusing the country. All this continual repetition about the Bill providing for the fining of strikers can only confuse the ordinary man in the street. No doubt, that is the reason why so many people paraded in London on Sunday.
It is pathetic that hon. Members opposite—

Mr. Harold Walker: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Waddington: No; I shall give way in a moment, but I wish to develop this part of my argument. It is pathetic for hon. Members opposite to say that there is no longer any relevance in the fact that the right hon. Lady the Member for Blackburn at one time wanted to fine strikers. We are talking about an Amendment which seeks to write into the Bill a provision which would prevent the fining of strikers. I cannot for the life of me see how it can be irrelevant to the debate to recall that two short years ago the


right hon. Member for Blackburn and the hon. Member for Doncaster both wanted to fine strikers. I do not want to bore the Committee with too much chapter and verse, but it is relevant—

Mr. Harold Walker: rose—

Mr. Waddington: I wish the hon. Gentleman would restrain his impatience for a moment, because it is important to get on the record what the right hon. Lady was trying to do two years ago. What she is now trying to tell the country she so dislikes, by putting her name to the Amendment, is the very thing she wanted to see as a part of our law on industrial relations two short years ago. Paragraph 94 of "In Place of Strife" says:
If, despite these steps and despite the setting up by the D.E.P. of an inquiry or other appropriate machinery, the strike went ahead. the Secretary of State would, after warning the two sides, be able to issue an Order requiring those involved to return to work and to desist from industrial action for a period of twenty-eight days, and at the same time requiring the employer to observe specified conditions or terms during the pause, the conditions normally being those that existed before the dispute. If either side failed to comply with this Order the Industrial Board at its discretion could impose financial penalties.
It is odd that the right hon. Lady should now be putting her name to an Amendment which seeks to prevent happening under the Bill what we are not trying to do but what she was trying to do two years ago. It is not surprising that people are becoming very confused about the purpose of the Bill and what it contains.
Hon. Members opposite have quoted more than once this afternoon what happened on Sunday. I remind the Committee of certain advertisements—

Mr. Harold Walker: On a point of order, Miss Harvie Anderson. I thought that it was a long-established convention of the House that if an hon. Member attacked another hon. Member he subsequently gave way if the hon. Member thus attacked wanted to defend himself.

Mr. Waddington: I have every intention of giving way, but if I sat down every time I heard a baaing or bleating noise from the other side I should never be able to complete a sentence. I hope that the Committee will wish me to

proceed for a little while and then give way at an appropriate moment.

Mr. William Hamling: On a point of order, Miss Harvie Anderson. The hon. Gentleman has attacked a member of the Opposition Front Bench specifically and by name, and now refuses to give way.

The Deputy Chairman: Order. That is not a matter for the Chair.

Mr. Waddington: I made it clear that I intended to give way in a moment, but I should like to finish the passage with which I am dealing.
We have continually been told this afternoon about the glorious march in London on Sunday. We have been told time and again by Labour hon. Members, what is not correct, that there is power in the Bill to fine strikers. It is open to us to say that one of the reasons why many people turned up on Sunday was that they were told for weeks and weeks by Labour hon. Members that there was power in the Bill to fine strikers, when we know that there is no such power. Chapter and verse for that is to be found in some of the advertisements sponsored recently by the T.U.C. Only the other day there appeared in the Daily Mirror an advertisement which it may startle some trade unionists to know must have cost the T.U.C. between £2,000 and £3,000. In the middle of that advertisement we find a statement that there is power in the Bill to fine strikers. In fact, there is not.

Mr. Harold Walker: The hon. Gentleman accuses the Labour Party of spreading confusion. Is not he guilty of the same offence when he goes up and down the country doing what he did in my constituency of Doncaster only a week or so ago, when he had an audience of 20? He tells audiences and the Press that there is no provision whatsoever in the Bill that could lead to imprisonment, while his right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Hertfordshire, East (Sir D. Walker-Smith) this afternoon has exposed that as a falsehood by explaining how it can happen.

Mr. Waddington: I was most grateful for the courtesy of those who did turn up and listen to me in Doncaster. Of the 20 who turned up about 10 were trade unionists, who gave me a most courteous


hearing and then exposed me to a rigorous cross-examination, and I am glad to say at the end gave me quite a nice ovation. I did not say at any time during that speech that in no circumstances could a man find himself in prison as a result of the provisions of the Bill. If anyone got that impression, I am sorry, but I certainly did not say so and I did not mean to convey that impression.

Mr. Harold Walker: Then will the hon. Gentleman ask the Doncaster Evening Post to print a correction of its report of his speech, which said that he did say that? May I add that every single one of the trade unionists present at his meeting marched with the demonstration on Sunday.

Mr. Waddington: I am amazed by that intervention, because no representative of the Doncaster paper was present. We were rather disappointed that no one from the Press was there to report what I said, so I do not know where the information came from which led to that report.
We all know that under the law of the land in certain cases a court can call upon a person to desist from a course of conduct, and that in the last resort if he does not desist he can land up in prison. I am involved in a constituency case concerning a woman who is complaining bitterly that her next-door neighbour has erected a large shed in his back yard, as a result of which she says that some of the light is being cut out of her back room. She is to take that other person to court. If that court finds that her grievance is genuine and that her right to light has been taken away by her neighbour, it can order him to remove the shed. If he does not, he could find himself in prison for refusing to obey an order of the court.
I mention that only because the hon. Member for Burnley (Mr. Dan Jones) said that the ordinary man in the street could not understand the distinction between the civil courts and the criminal courts. I have a great respect for the intelligence of the ordinary individual. I am sure that if the hon. Gentleman, whose opinions in this matter I greatly respect, thinks about the case I have mentioned he will agree that any citizen

reading about it in the newspapers will not say to himself that the man who has refused to remove the shed is a criminal; nobody would say that that man was liable to criminal penalties as a result of refusing to obey a court order.

Mr. Dan Jones: Surely the hon. Gentleman has enough practical knowledge to realise that once we begin to introduce the law into industrial relations we compound the difficulties?

Mr. Waddington: There the hon. Gentleman and I may never agree. In fairness, he will concede that at one time he supported his right hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn when she was Secretary of State. I think that I am right in saying that he did then think that there was room for a legal framework of industrial relations.

Mr. Dan Jones: That statement has been trotted out repeatedly, and I have said in this Chamber time and time again that at the point when we were informed that our Measure implied legal sanctions I was one of the first to say, "For heavens sake, drop it." I hope that that point is clearly understood. I am as much for industrial peace as any hon. Member opposite—indeed more.

Mr. Waddington: Perhaps I was being led astray. I was merely disagreeing with the hon. Gentleman when he said that there was no room for the law in industrial relations. We must remember that the law has always played a part in industrial relations. In so far as the Bill extends the scope of the law into industrial relations, it does not create a new type of law, because the law has always played its part.
If we accept that there should be power in the hands of the courts in certain cases to restrain certain types of conduct in industry then we must, as my right hon. and learned Friend said, provide them with the same power which they have to enforce their orders in other fields of the law. If we were to make an exception in this case, we should be making the Bill unenforceable, but we are now past those parts of the Bill which establish the legal framework and are dealing with those parts which provide for enforcement of that framework. I cannot see how one could have a legal framework for the enforcement of the provisions of the Bill


different from that which exists throughout the rest of the law for the enforcement of legal obligations.

5.30 p.m.

Mr. Charles Loughlin: I shall not detain the Committee for long. The hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. Waddington) made a typically arrogant speech. It is not the first time he has treated the Committee in that way. In view of his attitude, it is surprising that he should be in a Committee dealing with industrial relations, since the Bill introduces new legal procedures. Indeed, the Secretary of State and the Solicitor-General have been boasting about their proposals and how they introduce new legal or criminal procedures.

Mr. Waddington: If the hon. Gentleman is now leaving me, perhaps I can intervene.

Mr. Loughlin: I had not even agreed that I would allow the hon. Gentleman to intervene. I will sit down if and when I decide to let him intervene. So many hon. Members have been allowed to intervene that we have had speeches lasting 20 minutes which could well have been got through in about five minutes.It is not right that there should be so many interventions during the Committee stage.

Mr. Waddington: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way. I would like him to tell the Committee in what way I was arrogant. I did not intend to be arrogant.

Mr. Loughlin: I cannot tell the hon. Gentleman. All I can suggest to him is that he thinks about Robbie Burns:
O wad some Pow'r the giftie gie us
To see oursels as others see us!
What we are dealing with is industrial relations. What the Committee should be concerned with is the nature of these regulations in relation to industry. In Part IV of the Bill two fines are specifically referred to. Trade union officials and others can be fined under the Bill.

Mr. Kenneth Lewis: They are not fines.

Mr. Loughlin: I cannot quite appreciate myself what the difference is between a fine and compensation in this

sense. Whether it is termed compensation or anything else, it is a sanction. if I cannot quite see the difference, I am sure that, out of the 9½ million trade unionists, there must be at least 500,000 who will not be able to see the difference either. Once a person is put in gaol, as in the case of the Betteshanger strike—

Mr. Rose: Throughout the debate it has been said that there is no provision in the Bill with regard to fines. My hon. Friend the Member for Gloucestershire, West (Mr. Loughlin) is absolutely right in saying that, however one terms compensation, in many cases it is a fine. I ask the Committee to look at Clause 55, under which a person guilty of an offence is liable to a fine on summary conviction. It is wrong for hon. Members opposite to say that there is no question of a fine. But even accepting that a fine is not specifically laid down, my hon. Friend is right in saying that "compensation" is a euphemism for a fine.

Mr. Loughlin: I will go further. I draw the Committee's attention to Clause 84, which refers to a fine of £100 in one case and a fine of £400 in another. This is what I was referring to. I refer hon. Members to Part IV to correct their erroneous impression about fines.

Mr. Kenneth Lewis: rose—

Mr. Loughlin: No, please.

Mr. Lewis: They are not new fines. They exist now. They are not new fines.

Mr. Loughlin: I do not know whether I am in "Alice in Wonderland". All I am saying is that the Bill contains provisions for fines to be incurred.

Mr. Lewis: rose—

Mr. Loughlin: No. I am not giving way. I have given way on two or three occasions. I want to come back to the Betteshanger case. We can have all our wranglings in this Committee but in the end we have to ask ourselves what effect the Bill will have on industrial relations. If it will not have any effect, it will not have been worth while and there was no purpose in introducing it. If it will have an injurious effect, we should resist it—and by "we" I mean honourable Members on both sides of the Committee.


I am seeking to show how, if the Amendment is not accepted, there is the possibility of substantial and harmful effects on industrial relations. That is the issue. I have been too long in industry not to want to see harmonious relations.
Hon. Members may call these fines "compensation" or anything else they like, but on the first occasion that a man goes to gaol for being in breach of these regulations, there will be a worsening of industrial relations not only in the unit in which he was employed but throughout the rest of industry.
It is claimed that the Bill is necessary because we lose too many days in industry through strikes. We must be very careful about including provisions which will increase the number of days lost. [Laughter.] I do not know whether the hon. Member for Paddington, South (Mr. Scott) was listening, but he is giggling. If he wants to make a comment I will give way to him. For all the hilarity, we have to be conversant with what will be the effect of the Bill.
I do not want someone to go to prison for contempt of court, or in consequence of not being able to pay compensation, and it is therefore doubly important to me that he should not go to prison if the result is that many people come out on strike. This is the nub of the issue, as was clearly stated by the right hon. and learned Member for Hertfordshire, East (Sir D. Walker-Smith). We believe that it is not only wrong that men should be exposed to the possibility of prison sentences, but that it does no good to industrial relations.
By resisting the Amendment the Government are clearly telling the country that they are prepared to gaol men because they are in breach of the Bill. We say that that is wrong, whatever may have been said in "In Place of Strife" or anywhere else. This is the difference between us—the Tories want to put people in prison; we do not.

The Solicitor-General: I want later to devote some time to destroying the grotesquely misleading over-simplification best contained in the last sentence of the speech of the hon. Member for Gloucestershire, West (Mr. Loughlin).
One is here dealing with matters of importance which need to be expounded with some care. I feel that the Commit-

tee will support me when I say that it is not appropriate for the Bill or those of us who speak in support of it to be denounced for fraud and things of that kind when we hear the quality, and I choose my words carefully, of the intervention of the hon. Member for Manchester, Blackley (Mr. Rose) in support of the point being made by his hon. Friend the Member for Gloucestershire, West.
There are certain legitimate things for us to argue about, legitimate things about the scale and so on of the sanctions and remedies which we are proposing. But the hon. Member for Blackley did not help the Committee or anybody else when he intervened in support of his hon. Friend to suggest that Clause 55 contained a reference to the wicked—

Mr. Rose: No, I did not.

The Solicitor-General: I leave out the emotional adjective. He referred to the fact that the Bill was proposing fines and said that it would advance the attack on the Bill by the hon. Member for Gloucestershire, West that the Clause contained provision for fines. What for? They are fines upon employers for refusing to disclose procedure agreements to the third parties, fines upon employers for including false information in the procedure agreements when they disclose them and lodge them with the Secretary of State. What is more, that provision advanced by the hon. Member for Blackley in support of the general denunciation of the Bill is taken directly from Clause 28 of the Bill introduced by the right hon. Lady the Member for Blackburn (Mrs. Castle) and described by the hon. Member for Penistone (Mr. John Mendelson), or perhaps it was the hon. Member for Salford, West (Mr. Orme), as admirable and superb.
I do not want to make too much of the debating point, but for heaven's sake let us stick to understandable arguments related to the merits of the case. It is simply misleading the Committtee and the country to suggest that the Bill is criminal because it has criminal penalties in Clause 55, when they are a mirror image of the penalties of that Clause 28. There are genuine matters about which we can argue, but if that is the quality of the arguments being advanced in support of the Opposition's case, no wonder the case is being misunderstood.

Mr. Rose: Is the Solicitor-General aware that I made two points? One was in answer to one of his hon. Friends who said that the word "fine" did not occur in the Bill. I pointed out that it did. The second and more important point was that for employees instead of the word "fine", the word "compensation" was used, which in this context is a euphemism for "fine". The Solicitor-General has introduced into English law what is an entirely new and alien concept, the concept of unfair industrial practice. Use the word "compensation" as he may, it is still a euphemism for "fine".
I should like him to tell me anywhere in the English civil law where there is a limit to compensation in the way that he is introducing a limit for the fining of trade unions up to £100,000 in every case when they may be in breach of one of these alien, unfair industrial practices.

5.45 p.m.

The Solicitor-General: There is no misleading presentation. From beginning to end of the Bill, there is an assessment of awards in favour of anyone who claims to have been affected by an unfair industrial practice, be it worker unfairly dismissed by his employer, be it worker denied by his employer the right to join a trade union, be it any person in any of the situations who makes a claim founded upon compensation for a loss which he can prove. That is the foundation underlying the word "compensation". It is wholly wrong and misleading to suggest that by sleight of hand this is some kind of fine. The Committee and the country must understand precisely what we are talking about.
I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Heston and Isleworth (Mr. Hayhoe) and the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Hooson) that as a matter of principle the Amendment is unnecessary, because there is nothing in the Bill which proposes any new remedies against individuals in respect of the failure to work. There is, therefore, no case for introducing any of the exceptions contained in the Amendment.
If the Amendment were accepted as it stands, the Bill would be moving into different fields, as the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery will appreciate. The words

nor shall an employee be fined, have his earnings attached… for failure to do any work…
would be invading the existing law whereby a person, who in breach of contract does not perform his work, may do something quite wrong and be liable for damages for breach of contract in the ordinary way. That is a branch of the existing law which is seldom used except in cases where clear damage is legitimately recoverable in the ordinary sense, but which neither the Donovan Report nor the last Government sought to disturb.
The Amendment is tilting at windmills which are not set up by the Bill. The important point about the Clause has been made by several hon. Members, particularly my hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke (Mr. David Mitchell) and my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Hertfordshire, East (Sir D. Walker-Smith)—that it states beyond doubt so that it can never be challenged, that no court in the country shall have the right to make an order of any kind to compel a person to go to work, to stay at work, to return to work.
This is relevant when Opposition Members begin talking about the Betteshanger case. The whole foundation of the Betteshanger case was the wartime disputes Order which could require people to be sent back to work under the threat of penal sanctions. It is in order to underline the contrast between the ineptitude of that approach and what we are proposing that the Clause is so important. What the Bill makes plain beyond doubt is that there is no provision against anybody for going on strike. No sanction is proposed against anybody for declining to work and this is a sharp distinction from provisions shown not to have worked. It is in sharp distinction with the penalties imposed on people failing to comply with the conciliation pause order in "In Place of Strife".

Mr. Dan Jones: That is dead. This Bill is alive, there is the difference.

The Solicitor-General: What I am trying to show, and what is relevant, is that hon. Members opposite became so concerned with tilting at that which they succeeded in killing in the right hon. Lady's Bill that they believe it is still necessary to go on tilting at such things


now even though they find no place in the Bill. We are not proposing any remedy in respect of individual work-people refraining from work or going on strike. There is nothing there and that is why it is in sharp contrast to Betteshanger and to the proposals in "In Place of Strife".
Clause 114 is there to make that clear. This goes back to the misapprehensions underlying this and it is important that they should be understood. The hon. Member for Salford, West suggested that the Bill was equating trade unionists with criminals. This is not so. The fact that the civil law is being varied so as to apply in different ways to different people does not equate them with criminals.
The point has been made by several of my hon. Friends that in a thousand different ways we all have to conform to the obligations of civil law. Any one of us in the last resort, if we persist either in infringing the civil rights of our fellow citizens or persist in inciting others to infringe those rights, can be exposed to civil remedies. This is proposing the application of the same kind of civil remedies. The only astonishing thing is the novelty with which it strikes some hon. Members opposite.

Mr. Dan Jones: Of course we all agree that all citizens must be amenable to law but why force this into industrial relations when what we are seeking to do is to make such industrial relations more stable?

The Solicitor-General: Because the law is already present in industrial relations. It is the very shape and fabric of our law that has shaped the pattern of our industrial relations, even in terms of the law asserting and enforcing damages in industrial relations now. This question is of central importance to the debate.
In a series of cases in recent years the courts have ordered trade union leaders in person to refrain from taking certain action. The chronicle is familiar to the Committee—Stratford and Lindley, the Torquay Hotel case. In such cases orders have been made upholding civil rights and saying that any further attempts by those trade union leaders to challenge and incite people to challenge and infringe civil rights will be contrary to the law. This is the strength of the

point made by the opposite side of the Committee—we are a law-abiding country. When a court makes a declaration or determination of rights experience has shown, even in the industrial area, that that determination is respected. It is quite unrealistic to suggest that there is something wholly revolutionary in introducing a new concept here.

Mr. Orme: Would not the Solicitor-General admit that what he is setting up is not common civil law but a special law which will be applicable only to trade unionists? Would he not agree that a shop steward who takes part in an official action and is instructed to use his best endeavours, refuses to do so, is fined and refuses to pay can be cast into prison? Does he not think that this will be interpreted by trade unionists as an application of the criminal law?

The Solicitor-General: The hon. Member makes two points and I will answer the first one first. Of course these institutions are special institutions to handle special problems in industrial relations. This is a central and important part of the case. It is for that reason that the Industrial Relations Court and the Commission and the industrial tribunals are composed in the way we suggest. It is because, if we go back to Donovan and "In Place of Strife" it will be seen that proposals were made there for the establishment of special, tailor-made bodies.
We believe, and this has been the heart of our case since we started, that if we are to have tribunals and courts determining rights in industrial relations, they must be specially designed to meet the purposes of industrial sophistication and should be manned and established with that end in view. The speciality of the law that we are proposing for industrial relations is a recognition of the case for it and the exclusion of industrial relations problems from the ordinary courts. It is because we do not regard the ordinary courts as the best place for achieving a solution that we have set up this special code of law. It is certainly not designed to make the world more difficult for those concerned with industrial relations. It is designed to give them informal situations, informal courts that can understand their problems with greater sensitivity than the ordinary courts. I will return to the second point made by the hon. Member in a moment.
If we look at the framework for the future of civil law and its penalties it will be seen that we are seeking to restrict the scope of the criminal law. That is why we propose the repeal of one part of the 1875 Act. We are seeking to ensure, as this Clause does, that individuals cannot be coerced by court orders requiring them to go to work. We are seeking to make it plain that whereas at present injunctions must be sought against trade union officials, in future the remedies will be sought against the organisation not against the individual acting on behalf of it.
We are not whittling away this principle even when it comes to the national emergency provisions in Clause 125, because there again we make it plain that a national emergency order cannot be made against someone doing no more than taking part in a strike.

Mr. Heffer: Is that not precisely the point? The hon. and learned Gentleman constantly says that under Clause 114 there will be no orders which will force individuals back, but under the special emergency procedures, particularly in Clause 124(3) it says that an application will be made:
where it relates to a strike … and the persons so specified shall, together with the Secretary of State, be the parties to any proceedings on that application.
The hon. and learned Gentleman is trying to mislead the Committee and the country by putting a gloss on this situation and leading them to think that there will be no orders. Yet we find that there will be orders. It is not good enough for him to say this.

The Solicitor-General: I am glad that the hon. Member has raised that point and I will be dealing with it more fully. If he looks carefully at Clause 124(3) he will see it says:
the persons … workers, officials of such organisations or other persons) appearing to the Secretary of State to be responsible for calling, organising, procuring or financing the strike.
If we go on to look at Clause 125(3) it will be seen that that makes it plain that the person specified in an order relating to a strike:
… shall not include any person who in the opinion of the Industrial Court … would have, no responsibility for the strike … in question beyond that of being included among the persons taking part in it.

That is precisely the point. The order may not include anyone who has only taken part in the strike. This is the clear purpose of the legislation. It is the organisation, calling or procuring of the strike that matters. The Betteshanger provision involves trying to proceed against individuals taking part in the strike. The conciliation pause provisions in "In Place of Strife" involved trying to proceed against individuals who were taking part in the strike. We have confined ourselves to remedies against organisations or individuals calling, procuring or organising.
[Mr. J. C. JENNINGS in the Chair]
6.0 p.m.
I come back to the point made by hon. Members opposite—[Interruption.] Hon. Members opposite keep on saying "shop stewards", as though this is the answer. We have established that strikers or workers taking part in a strike are outside the remedies proposed in the Bill. Shop stewards are outside the remedies proposed in the Bill as long as they are acting as trade union officials within the scope of their authority. Under existing legislation the only way in which one can get a remedy in respect of the inducing of an unfair strike is by seeking an injunction against trade union officials. They too are outside the scope of the Bill as long as they are acting within the scope of their authority.

Mr. McNamara: The Solicitor-General has admitted that if the unofficial shop stewards committee in Hull docks organises or procures a strike in breach of this section or perhaps some other section of the Bill they are severally and individually liable and, as a consequence of the procedures outlined by the right hon. and learned Member for Hertfordshire, East (Sir D. Walker-Smith), they could be gaoled.

The Solicitor-General: In the very narrow category which I have identified—namely, someone who is not merely participating in a strike but is organising or procuring a strike outside the scope of any authority from any registered union —remedies can be sought against such a person or organisation or group of people if the strike is unfair. Even those people are outside the scope of any remedies


proposed in the Bill for an unofficial strike if they take care to give notice within the terms of the ordinary contract. It is astonishing to denounce such a proposition as tyrannous when that is the limit of the remedy proposed.

Mrs. Barbara Castle: The Solicitor-General says that certain people will not be caught by the Bill if they give notice. Is he referring to Clause 133? That is a vital Clause, but, unfortunately, as a result of the guillotine, we shall not have a chance to probe it. There are many people of legal standing who believe that Clause 133 does not mean what the Solicitor-General says it means.

The Solicitor-General: Clause 85, which is the only new remedy in respect of calling strikes without notice, does not create a wrong or a remedy if due notice is given. Clause 133 is designed entirely as a benevolent provision to set beyond doubt the majority judgment of the Court of Appeal in Morgan v. Fry. Clause 133 makes no difference to the legality of the unofficial unregistered organisation or leader calling a strike as long as it or he gives due notice. Clause 133 is intended merely to make plain that the decision in Morgan v. Fry stands.
The unofficial unregistered organisation is in difficulty only in the circumstances which I have described. It can have made against it, like anybody else in any comparable situation, an order determining the rights of the parties. If it has wrongly called and organised an unfair strike, it can have an order for compensation made against it. If it has wrongly procured or induced an unfair strike, it can have an order to restrain it from continuing to do so made against it.
In those situations, one can ask how the order for compensation can be enforced and how the order to refrain from unfair action can be enforced. An order for compensation against anyone, be it an employer, an organisation or an individual, can be enforced in the same way as any other civil debt can be enforced. As the right hon. Lady the Member for Blackburn pointed out in the context of her proposals, once the provisions of the Administration of Justice Act come into force, as they do in a very few months, the ordinary remedy against the individual for compensation

he is liable to pay will be by way of application to the county court. To quote the right hon. Lady, he will then, when faced with the same question—

Mrs. Castle: Does not the hon. and learned Gentleman think it his duty to explain his Bill in his own terms and not in somebody else's? This is getting grotesque.

The Solicitor-General: It is grotesque, but the right hon. Lady should not be unduly embarrassed if I choose to explain the point about the way in which compensation can be recovered from individuals in the language, so telling in its lucidity, which the right hon. Lady addressed to her hon. Friends in two debates last year. There is no escaping from the dilemma about this, but the principles of the recovery of compensation as set out in the Bill were supported by 224 right hon. and hon. Members opposite and rejected by 62 of them. The 62 Members opposite are entitled to claim their purity, but the right hon. Lady and the hon. Member—

Mr. McNamara: Why did not the hon. and learned Gentleman vote with us?

The Solicitor-General: I was not a Member at the time. My right hon. Friend the Member for Mitcham (Mr. R. Carr), in response to the right hon. Lady's speech in support of "In Place of Strife" as a basis for legislation, said that it was all right so far as it went. It is in that context that I quote what the right hon. Lady said. She pointed out that if an order for compensation was made against anyone under her Bill—not, be it noted, an order for a penalty—
The choice will, therefore, be with the worker. There are genuine options open to him. He can enter into voluntary arrangements to pay what is due over an appropriate period. He can stipulate that, if he is in default, he would prefer to be subject to the normal process of collection for civil debts, other than attachment".—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 16th April, 1969; Vol. 781, c. 1186.]
The right hon. Lady said "other than attachment" because attachment did not then exist in that form. If he refused to pay an order for compensation. the Administration of Justice Act, 1970, foreshadowed by the right hon. Lady and introduced last year, abolishes committal to prison as a remedy for failure to meet the terms of an order for compensation.


There is therefore no possibility of imprisonment in respect of an award of compensation—

Mr. John Mendelson: The hon. and learned Gentleman knows very well that I was referring to the Bill which was presented after the normal process of democratic discussion in what was then—[Interruption.] I wish that some hon. Members opposite would allow the same democratic discussion on the question of arms for South Africa.

The Temporary Chairman: Order. The reference to arms for South Africa is completely out of order in this context.

Mr. Mendelson: I agree, Mr. Jennings. It would be as well if there were the same free discussion among the ranks of right hon. and hon. Members opposite on the supply of arms to South Africa as there was on our Bill. What is not under discussion now are definitions which were never part of the Bill presented to Parliament by the Labour Government. I refer to the provision to which the right hon. and learned Member for Hertfordshire, East (Sir D. Walker-Smith) referred, namely, Clause 90(3)(c) on page 64 of the Bill which provides for
an order directing the respondent to refrain from continuing to take that action, and to refrain from taking any other action of a like nature in relation to the complainant".
The heart of the matter is that it does not matter much how at the end the process is enforced—

The Temporary Chairman: Order. I wish that hon. Members would make brief interventions and not speeches.

Mr. Mendelson: The Government are trying to remove the established rights of working people and to enforce that removal. That is the argument.

The Solicitor-General: The argument is being reduced as we go along. I have explained to the Committee that an order for compensation or damages, since the passing of the Administration of Justice Act, cannot be enforced by imprisonment and can be enforced by the ordinary remedies of a civil creditor for civil debt. An award for compensation is what I am talking about now, and one comes back to the attachment of earnings order.
I take the point made by the hon. Member for Penistone (Mr. John Mendelson). It is the only remaining

point, namely, the extent of the remedy which ought to exist for contempt of court when somebody has failed to comply with an order made by the Industrial Court. That is the narrow area with which we are concerned.
Let this be plain. Such an order can be made only by the Industrial Court itself. It will be an alternative to an order for the determination of rights, which will often be regarded as sufficient, and respected. It cannot be made by any court within this field but that court, and it will be of the same quality as orders that have been and are still being made even in the sensitive area of industrial relations. It will be an order telling someone not to interfere with the rights defined by Parliament of other citizens. That kind of order being made now in industrial disputes, where a plaintiff is able to steer himself through the maze, is supportable on exactly the same sanctions and is complied with and obeyed. In this country courts of the standing of the Industrial Court deal with this kind of matter expertly and would normally experience little or no difficulty in securing compliance with their orders and decisions. This is what has happened so far.

Mr. Dan Jones: Will the Solicitor-General help the Committee by telling us precisely when this last happened and under what precise circumstances, and how frequently this has happened?

The Solicitor-General: There were several cases last year—

Mr. Jones: That is too vague. Let us have precise details.

The Solicitor-General: There was at least one case last year where a series of would-be recognition strikes was being called in the road haulage industry and the employer or employers affected by these recognition strikes, threatening shutdown, commenced proceedings which would in the end have led to an injunction in the ordinary court. The trade union leaders gave undertakings to comply with the order that had been granted. In the Johnson Matthey case last year, in a comparable situation, an order was made and complied with last year.

Mr. Jones: Is this in the ordinary run of industrial procedure?

The Solicitor-General: Certainly these are happening all the time, particularly and principally in the present state of the law on recognition issues. The point is that the orders are being observed and complied with. There is almost no prospect of such orders being defied When they are defied, no court will move lightly to the possibility of imprisonment for continued and wilful defiance of an order made in this kind of situation.
Again, as in other situations, an undertaking can be sought. The person against whom the order has been made can be required to justify why he has not complied with the order. He will be given a further opportunity of doing so but if, in the last resort—and this point has been made time without number—someone is determined to continue defying an order made in the situations defined in the Bill, he cannot be kept out of prison. But that is an exceptional "end of the road" situation. There has been no concealment of this. It has been said clearly and openly from the outset.
I am concerned that the Committee should understand the narrow and unexceptional nature of these proposals. They are an extension over a small and clearly defined field of industrial relations of remedies ordinarily available in every other situation in the country. That is the scale of the matter. What we resent and seek to challenge is the extent to which this defined proposal is being represented, and misrepresented, as a proposal to fine and imprison strikers in the mass or in the round. It is a total misrepresentation.

6.15 p.m.

Mr. Rose: One advantage of having a three-line whip for the debate is that we have the presence—and it is always a pleasure to have him—of the right hon. and learned Member for Hertfordshire, South-East (Sir D. Walker-Smith) who appears to be the shadow Solicitor-General on the back benches of the Conservative Party—

Sir D. Walker-Smith: In the short space of 30 seconds the hon. Member for Manchester, Blackley (Mr. Rose) has made three factual errors. I am not the right hon. and learned Member for Hertfordshire, South-East. My constituency is Hertfordshire, East. Hertfordshire, South-West is a different constituency. I am

not the shadow Solicitor-General on the back bench or any other bench. We have not got a three-line whip on this Clause. I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving us a foretaste so quickly in his speech of the standard of accuracy of its contents.

Mr. Rose: The right hon. and learned Gentleman has entirely underlined the point—

Sir D. Walker-Smith: Undermined!

Mr. Rose: It is always a pleasure to have the right hon. and learned Gentleman with us because of his legalistic way of taking up points of that nature, which makes me regard him as the shadow Solicitor-General on the back benches. The right hon. and learned Gentleman has referred to something which I intended to refer to later in the debate—the position of John Hampden and his refusal to pay a forced loan. It was not a fine or compensation but, although the terms may vary, the facts and the principle remain the same. The right hon. and learned Gentleman, whether or not he is the shadow Solicitor-General, will remember what was said about John Hampden. He will remember these immortal words:
Some village-Hampden, that with dauntless breast
The little tyrant of his fields withstood".
The "little tyrant of his fields" this time comes from Bexley. Whether it be ship money, compensation or a fine, many people will follow the honourable tradition of refusing to pay if they feel that the law is unjust and bears unjustly on one section of the community. John Hampden went on to be a Member of Parliament and was ultimately killed in the Civil War. I hope that right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite are not intentionally trying to stir up a civil war in industry, because this is what we are witnessing.
The Bill is already having an interesting effect. The right hon. and learned Member for Hertfordshire, East complained about my accuracy, but he told us last week that there was no feeling about the Bill. Then the hon. Member for Yarmouth (Mr. Fell) told us about the paltry demonstration in his constituency, as did the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. Waddington). Yet there was


the largest demonstration in the history of this country on a political issue on this Bill, and that is only the beginning—and it was a very peaceful demonstration at that.
The people of this country are law-abiding. It does not lie in the mouth of the Solicitor-General to say that the remarks of the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heller) were grotesquely misleading and that he was oversimplifying the situation. All the way through the Bill it is the Solicitor-General who has been grotesquely misleading and over-simplifying. It is the same sort of distorted logic as we get from the Prime Minister, who tells us that we would do better to spend our time debating the Bill than by walking through the Lobbies, quite forgetting that he himself imposed the guillotine on the Bill. It is the same sort of logic as that used by the Minister of State in an article not very long ago when dealing with the extent to which this legislation will affect industrial behaviour. He thought that trade unionists in the country at large accept the provisions as being fair and reasonable. It is because we do not accept these provisions as fair and reasonable that 140,000 people demonstrated on Sunday—which is only the beginning—and this is why these provisions will not work in practice.
The Solicitor-General has drafted a Clause to provide an alibi. He says that no one will be compelled to do any work or to attend any place for the purpose of doing any work; but he does not say what will happen if they do not. What will happen under Clauses 85 to 87? Clause 87(1)(b) says that it shall be an unfair industrial practice for any person
to interfere with the performance by another person of a contract … to which, that other person is a party".
The Solicitor-General will see that Clause 87 applies to any person who takes action
in contemplation or furtherance of an industrial dispute".
That will apply to individuals although there may not be imprisonment en masse. There is an intention to pick off those who are speaking to their fellow trade unionists, whether they be trade union officials or commentators from outside. Those people will be subject to remedies

which, whether they are termed civil or criminal, are ultimately criminal.
The right hon. and learned Gentleman who talks so much about accuracy was not accurate when he said that there was no world of quasi-criminal law. Perhaps he should read the Modern Law Review, 1962, Vol. 25, page 181 and look at the quotation about the
oft-expressed view that contempt proceedings are quasi-criminal or even that all con-tempts of court are criminal in nature".
Therefore, the right hon. and learned Gentleman's accuracy is a little in doubt there. Perhaps he will also look at the decision of Lord Denning, to which I referred earlier, that where a man is sent to prison for contempt of court it must be satisfactorily proved. Lord Denning was saying that contempt of court is an offence of a criminal nature. I do not want to weary the Committee with two pages in a similar vein, but there is adequate authority for saying that this is a quasi-criminal or criminal concept.
A trade unionist or shop steward or, indeed, one of my hon. Friends who contributes to a strike in terms of finance under Clause 86 will find himself behind bars, and it will not matter whether he is there for criminal or for civil reasons. We all know that today a third of offenders in prison are there for civil debt. This is one of the problems we face. Under Clause 6 if one strikes to avoid the provisions of Clause 5(1)(b) and thereby breaches a fair industrial practice, one does not need to force people to go back to work in so many words by a provision in the Bill. It is enough to fine them for not going to work. This point needs to be underlined.
If they refuse to obey a procedure agreement made against their will under Clause 39(2)(b), if they have been deemed to have broken an agreement under Clauses 32 to 34, in every one of those cases there will be some kind of coercion. There is no need for a provision to say that they must go back to work rather than strike. They are fined, and, although the Government may use the word "compensation" as much as they like, it is still a fine for being in breach of any one of these things in regard to something that they did not even agree to do.
The fallacy of the provision is that hon. Members opposite know that they


may be able to get Jack Jones or Alf Allen or Tom Jackson to the trough of the Industrial Relations Bill, but they cannot be made to drink its waters. They know that when it comes to it there will be many more village Hampdens. They know that one cannot enforce the machinery of industrial relations through fines, compensation or imprisonment, nor can one force a trade union to police the set-up under Clause 34(2).
For example, a trade union official will be expected to go into work to show that he is doing everything reasonably practicable to get others back to work. That is the logic of the provision, and we have had one example of it. Hon. Members opposite know that they cannot do this. They cannot force people to go back to their place of work. But this is enshrined in the Bill as a monument of virtue, when at the same time they are providing numerous examples of this alien concept of unfair industrial practices and are to fine people who fail to abide by the code. They then come back and say that those people are not being forced to go to work. They are not. They are just being fined or punished for not going to work because they are in breach of one of these Clauses. This is why we have put down this Amendment.
Let us hear no more of this nonsense about "In Place Of Strife", about which we heard a great deal from the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne. There was one difference between "In Place Of Strife" and the Consultative Document put forward by the Government. My right hon. Friend consulted on "In Place Of Strife", but on the so-called Consultative Document not only did no consultation take place but within a week the Bill was published. That is the difference. Therefore, let us compare like with like. Let us compare the Bill that was produced by my right hon. Friend with this Bill. Let us not look at a Consultative Document produced by the Government, on which no consultation has taken place.

The Solicitor-General: Would the hon. Gentleman not acknowledge that the vigour with which the proposals contained in "In Place of Strife" were first put forward, the urgency with which they were first urged on the country and as they finally emerged 18 months later

when a Bill first saw the light of day should not be represented as a process of consultation so much as a capitulation, and that this led to the result at the last General Election, which is why we are here now?

Mr. Rose: The Solicitor-General does not understand that when we on this side of the Committee pursue something, we pursue it with vigour and we argue and debate the matter. If only the Prime Minister would have the same degree of consultation with some of his hon. Friends and would consult the trade union movement about the Bill, we might get something in place of strife instead of the prescription for industrial civil war set out in the Bill. This is why the Bill is a nonsense. We all know of Betteshanger and the Irish case, where the employer had to go to the gaol to pay the fines of his employees, and even provide taxis to take them back. One does not want strikers imprisoned and paying compensation. We want strikers working. That is the fallacy that the hon. and learned Gentleman will not understand. We shall not get them working if we provoke them into actions in the way that this Bill does.
I ask the Solicitor-General to look at the Payne Report on the Enforcement of Judgment Debts (Cmnd. 3909), which showed that 34 per cent. of civil debtors were maintenance defaulters. If people are willing to default over maintenance, clearly a lot of us will be willing on a matter of principle to default and refuse to pay fines imposed for practices which hitherto have been regarded as fair in industry.
We see that the ultimate enforcement must be of a criminal nature through contempt; it must be through the attachment of earnings or distraint upon people's property. What good for industrial relations does the hon. and learned Gentleman think it will do if under Clause 86, bailiffs can take away the property of strikers who happen to be striking in sympathy with other strikers? The Solicitor-General has told us that it will be an unfair industrial practice under Clause 85 if an unofficial strike is called even though it is legitimised subsequently by the leadership of the trade union concerned. The people involved in and who induce that


strike will find themselves at the wrong end of the law, even though it is a perfectly legitimate strike subsequently endorsed by the union leadership.
The position is, "You pays your fine and you takes your choice. You can either go to gaol and be a Hampden, or you cannot". I believe that trade unionists will not stand for it. They are very stubborn people. The people of this country have always been stubborn when they have seen their fundamental rights being undermined. That is what the Solicitor-General is doing here. I believe that they will refuse to pay fines that they regard as unjust. I should certainly do the same if I came under the inducement provisions which are put into so many parts of the Bill. These are the kinds of provision which one expects to find in a totalitarian country. We do not expect them to be introduced wthin the framework of industrial relations here.
The right hon. and learned Member for Hertfordshire, East, with his great accuracy, underlined a point which was made by other hon. Members, that if we

Division No. 185.]
AYES
[6.33 p.m.


Abse, Leo
Cronin, John
Galpern, Sir Myer


Albu, Austen
Crosland, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Garrett, W. E.


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Cunningham, G. (Islington, S.W.)
Gilbert, Dr. John


Allen, Scholefield
Darling, Rt. Hn. George
Ginsburg, David


Archer, Peter (Rowley Regis)
Davidson, Arthur
Golding, John


Armstrong, Ernest
Davies, Denzil (Llanelly)
Gourlay, Harry


Ashley, Jack
Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)
Grant, George (Morpeth)


Ashton, Joe
Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Grant, John D. (Islington, E.)


Atkinson, Norman
Davies, S. O. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside)


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Davis, Clinton (Hackney, C.)
Griffiths, Will (Exchange)


Barnett, Joel
Deakins, Eric
Grimond, Rt. Hn. J.


Beaney, Alan
de Freitas, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey
Hamilton, James (Bothwell)


Bennett, James (Glasgow, Bridgeton)
Delargy, H. J.
Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)


Bidwell, Sydney
Dell, Rt. Hn. Edmund
Hannan, William (G'gow, Maryhill)


Bishop, E. S.
Dempsey, James
Hardy, Peter


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Doig, Peter
Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)


Boardman, H. (Leigh)
Dormand, J. D.
Hart, Rt. Hn. Judith


Booth, Albert
Douglas, Dick (Stirlingshire, E.)
Hattersley, Roy


Bradley, Tom
Douglas-Mann, Bruce
Heffer, Eric S.


Brown, Bob (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne,W.)
Driberg, Tom
Hilton, W. S.


Brown, Hugh D. (G'gow, Provan)
Duffy, A. E. P.
Hooson, Emlyn


Brown, Ronald (Shoreditch &amp; F'bury)
Dunn, James A.
Horam, John


Buchan, Norman
Dunnett, Jack
Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas


Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)
Eadie, Alex
Howell, Denis (Small Heath)


Callaghan, Rt. Hn. James
Edelman, Maurice
Huckfield,Leslie


Campbell, I. (Dunbartonshire, W.)
Edwards, Robert (Bilston)
Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey)


Cant, R. B.
Edwards, William (Merioneth)
Hughes, Mark (Durham)


Carmichael, Neil
Ellis, Tom
Hughes, Roy (Newport)


Carter, Ray (Birmingh'm, Northfield)
English, Michael
Hunter, Adam


Carter-Jones, Lewis (Eccles)
Evans, Fred
Irvine,Rt.Hn.SirArthur(Edge Hill)


Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara
Fernyhough, Rt. Hn. E.
Janner, Greville


Clark, David (Colne Valley)
Fisher, Mrs.Doris(B'ham,Ladywood)
Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas


Cocks, Michael (Bristol, S.)
Fitch, Alan (Wigan)
Jeger,Mrs.Lena(H'b'n&amp;St.P'cras,S.)


Cohen, Stanley
Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)
Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)


Coleman, Donald
Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
John, Brynmor


Concannon, J. D.
Foley, Maurice
Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)


Conlan, Bernard
Foot, Michael
Johnson, James (K'ston-on-Hull, W.)


Corbet, Mrs. Freda
Ford, Ben
Johnson, Walter (Derby, S.)


Cox, Thomas (Wandsworth, C.)
Forrester, John
Jones, Barry (Flint, E.)


Crawshaw, Richard
Fraser, John (Norwood)
Jones, Dan (Burnley)



Freeson, Reginald
Jones,Rt.Hn.Sir Elwyn (W.Ham,S.)

take away the ultimate sanction there can be no enforcement. That is precisely what we have argued throughout. The Commission on Industrial Relations did not need enforcement. It was based on voluntary co-operation. The purpose of these two Amendments is to expose the fact that, far from voluntary co-operation, the Government are intent upon industrial relations by force of law and by sanction against individuals as well as against trade unions, be they by fines, compensation or imprisonment for debt.

The Government cannot say that this is not a criminal law. Not only are there those authorities about the quasi-criminal or criminal concept for contempt. There is also the fact that once a trade unionist is in gaol and once his property has been distrained, industrial relations will not be improved. This provision will cause the utmost bitterness amongst ordinary working people.

Question put, That the Amendment be made:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 256, Noes 290.

Jones, Gwynoro (Carmarthen)
Molloy, William
Silkin, Hn. S. C. (Dulwich)


Judd, Frank
Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)
Sillars, James


Kaufman, Gerald
Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)
Silverman, Julius


Kelley, Richard
Morris, Rt. Hn. John (Aberavon)
Skinner, Dennis


Kerr, Russell
Moyle, Roland
Small, William


Kinnock, Neil
Mulley, Rt. Hn. Frederick
Smith, John (Lanarkshire, N.)


Lambie, David
Murray, Ronald King
Spearing, Nigel


Lamond, James
Ogden, Eric
Spriggs, Leslie


Latham, Arthur
O'Halloran, Michael
Stallard, A. W.


Lawson, George
O'Malley, Brian
Steel, David


Leadbitter, Ted
Oram, Bert
Stewart, Donald (Western Isles)


Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick
Orme, Stanley
Stewart, Rt. Hn. Michael (Fulham)


Leonard, Dick
Oswald, Thomas
Stoddart, David (Swindon)


Lestor, Miss Joan
Paget, R. T.
stonehouse, Rt. Hn. John


Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham, N.)
Palmer, Arthur
Strang, Gavin


Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles
Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R.


Lipton, Marcus
Pardoe, John
Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley


Lomas, Kenneth
Parker, John (Dagenham)
Swain, Thomas


Loughlin, Charles
Parry, Robert (Liverpool, Exchange)
Thomas,Rt.Hn.George (Cardiff,W.)


Lyon, Alexander W. (York)
Pavitt, Laurie
Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)


Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)
Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred
Thomson, Rt. Hn. G. (Dundee, E.)


Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson
Pendry, Tom
Tinn, James


McBride, Neil
Pentland, Norman
Tuck, Raphael


McCartney, Hugh
Perry, Ernest G.
Urwin, T. W.


McElhone, Frank
Prentice, Rt. Hn. Reg.
Varley, Eric G.


McGuire, Michael
Prescott, John
Wainwright, Edwin


Mackenzie, Gregor
Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


Mackie, John
Price, William (Rugby)
Wallace, George


Mackintosh, John P.
Probert, Arthur
Watkins, David


Maclennan, Robert
Rankin, John
Weitzman, David


McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)
Reed, D. (Sedgefield)
Wellbeloved, James


McNamara, J. Kevin
Rees, Merlyn (Leeds, S.)
Wells, William (Walsall, N.)


MacPherson, Malcolm
Rhodes, Geoffrey
White, James (Glasgow, Pollok)


Mahon, Simon (Bootle)
Richard, Ivor
Whitehead, Phillip


Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield,E).
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)
Whitlock, William


Marks, Kenneth
Roberts,Rt.Hn.Goronwy(Caernarvon)
Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick


Marquand, David
Robertson, John (Paisley)
Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)


Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy
Roderick, Caerwyn E.(Br'c'n&amp;R'dnor)
Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)


Mayhew, Christopher
Rodgers, William (Stockton-on-Tees)
Williams, W. T. (Warrington)


Meacher, Michael
Roper, John
Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)


Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert
Rose, Paul B.
Wilson, Rt. Hn. Harold (Huyton)


Mendelson, John
Ross, Rt. Hn. William (Kilmarnock)
Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)


Mikardo, Ian
Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-under-Lyne)



Millan, Bruce
Shore, Rt. Hn. Peter (Stepney)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Miller, Dr. M. S.
Short,Rt.Hn.Edward(N'c'tle-u-Tyne)
Mr. Joseph Harper and


Milne, Edward (Blyth)
Short, Mrs. Renée (W'hampton,N.E.)
Mr. William Hamling.




NOES


Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)
Campbell, Rt. Hn.G.(Moray&amp;Nairn)
Emery, Peter


Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)
Carlisle, Mark
Eyre, Reginald


Astor, John
Cary, Sir Robert
Farr, John


Atkins, Humphrey
Channon, Paul
Fell, Anthony


Awdry, Daniel
Chapman, Sydney
Fenner, Mrs. Peggy


Baker, Kenneth (St. Marylebone)
Chataway, Rt. Hn. Christopher
Finsberg, Geoffrey (Hampstead)


Baker, W. H. K. (Banff)
Chichester-Clark, R.
Fisher, Nigel (Surbiton)


Balniel, Lord
Churchill, W. S.
Fletcher-Cooke, Charles


Barber, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Clark, William (Surrey, E.)
Fortescue, Tim


Batsford, Brian
Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Foster, Sir John


Bell, Ronald
Cockeram, Eric
Fox, Marcus


Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torquay)
Cooke, Robert
Fraser,Rt.Hn.Hugh(St'fford &amp; Stone)


Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gosport)
Coombs, Derek
Fry, Peter


Benyon, W.
Cooper, A. E.
Galbraith, Hn. T. G.


Berry, Hn. Anthony
Cordle, John
Gardner, Edward


Biffen, John
Corfield, Rt. Hn. Frederick
Gibson-Watt, David


Biggs-Davison, John
Cormack, Patrick
Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)


Blaker, Peter
Costain, A. P.
Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)


Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S.W.)
Critchley, Julian
Glyn, Dr. Alan


Body, Richard
Crouch, David
Godber, Rt. Hn. J. B.


Boscawen, Robert
Curran, Charles
Goodhart, Philip


Bossom, Sir Clive
Dalkeith, Earl of
Goodhew, Victor


Bowden, Andrew
Davies, Rt. Hn. John (Knutsford)
Gorst, John


Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. John
d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry
Gower, Raymond


Braine, Bernard
d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Maj.-Gen. Jack
Grant, Anthony (Harrow, C.)


Bray, Ronald
Dean, Paul
Gray, Hamish


Brewis, John
Digby, Simon Wingfield
Green, Alan


Brocklebank-Fowler, Christopher
Dixon, Piers
Grieve, Percy


Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
Dodds-Parker, Douglas
Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)


Bruce-Gardyne, J.
Drayson, G. B.
Grylls, Michael


Bryan, Paul
du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward
Gummer, Selwyn


Buchanan-Smith, Alick(Angus,N&amp;M)
Dykes, Hugh
Gurden, Harold


Buck, Antony
Eden, Sir John
Hall, Miss Joan (Keighley)


Bullus, Sir Eric
Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Hall, John (Wycombe)


Butler, Adam (Bosworth)
Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)
Hall-Davis, A. G. F.







Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
Mather, Carol
Russell, Sir Ronald


Hannam, John (Exeter)
Maude, Angus
St. John-Stevas, Norman


Harrison, Brian (Maldon)
Maudling, Rt. Hn. Reginald
Scott, Nicholas


Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere
Mawby, Ray
Scott-Hopkins, James


Haselhurst, Alan
Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.
Sharples, Richard


Havers, Michael
Meyer, Sir Anthony
Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh &amp; Whitby)


Hay, John
Mills, Peter (Torrington)
Shelton, William (Clapham)


Hayhoe, Barney
Mills, Stratton (Belfast, N.)
Simeons, Charles


Heseltine, Michael
Miscampbell, Norman
Skeet, T. H. H.


Hicks, Robert
Mitchell,Lt.-Col.C.(Aberdeenshire,W)
Smith, Dudley (W'wick &amp; L'mington)


Higgins, Terence L.
Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)
Soref, Harold


Hiley, Joseph
Moate, Roger
Speed, Keith


Hill, John E. B. (Norfolk, S.)
Molyneaux, James
Spence, John


Hill, James (Southampton, Test)
Money, Ernie
Sproat, Iain


Holland, Philip
Monks, Mrs. Connie
Stainton, Keith


Holt, Miss Mary
Montgomery, Fergus
Stanbrook, Ivor


Hordern, Peter
More, Jasper
Stewart-Smith, D. G. (Belper)


Hornby, Richard
Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh)
Stodart, Anthony (Edinburgh, W.)


Hornsby-Smith,Rt. Hn.Dame Patricia
Morgan-Giles, Rear-Adm.
Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M.


Howe, Hn. Sir Geoffrey (Reigate)
Mudd, David
Stokes, John


Howell, David (Guildford)
Murton, Oscar
Stuttaford, Dr. Tom


Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, N.)
Nabarro, Sir Gerald
Sutcliffe, John


Hunt, John
Neave, Airey
Tapsell, Peter


Hutchison, Michael Clark
Nicholls, Sir Harmar
Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)


Iremonger, T. L.
Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael
Taylor,Edward M.(G'gow,Cathcart)


James, David
Normanton, Tom
Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)


Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)
Nott, John
Taylor, Robert (Croydon, N.W.)


Jessel, Toby
Onslow, Cranley
Tebbit, Norman


Johnson Smith, G. (E. Grinstead)
Oppenheim, Mrs. Sally
Temple, John M.


Jopling, Michael
Orr, Capt. L. P. S.
Thatcher, Rt. Hn. Mrs. Margaret


Joseph, Rt. Hn. Sir Keith
Osborn, John
Thomas, John Stradling (Monmouth)


Kaberry, Sir Donald
Owen, Idris (Stockport, N.)
Thomas, Rt. Hn. Peter (Hendon, S.)


Kellett, Mrs. Elaine
Page, Graham (Crosby)
Thomason, Sir Richard (Croydon, S.)


Kershaw, Anthony
Page, John (Harrow, W.)
Tilney, John


Kilfedder, James
Parkinson, Cecil (Enfield, W.)
Trafford, Dr. Anthony


King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)
Percival, Ian
Trew, Peter


King, Tom (Bridgwater)
Pike, Miss Mervyn
Tugendhat, Christopher


Kinsey, J. R.
Pink, R. Bonner
Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H.


Kirk, Peter
Pounder, Rafton
van Straubenzee, W. R.


Kitson, Timothy
Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch
Vickers, Dame Joan


Knight, Mrs. Jill
Price, David (Eastleigh)
Waddington, David


Knox, David
Prior, Rt. Hn. J. M. L.
Walder, David (Clitheroe)


Lambton, Antony
Proudfoot, Wilfred
Walker, Rt. Hn. Peter (Worcester)


Lane, David
Pym, Rt. Hn. Francis
Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek


Langford-Holt, Sir John
Quennell, Miss J. M.
Wall, Patrick


Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry
Raison, Timothy
Walters, Dennis


Le Marchant, Spencer
Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James
Ward, Dame Irene


Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Rawlinson, Rt. Hn. Sir Peter
Warren, Kenneth


Lloyd, Ian (P'tsm'th, Langstone)
Redmond, Robert
Weatherill, Bernard


Longden, Gilbert
Reed, Laurance (Bolton, E.)
Wells, John (Maidstone)


Loveridge, John
Rees, Peter (Dover)
White, Roger (Gravesand)


MacArthur, Ian
Rees-Davies, W. R.
Wiggin, Jerry


McCrindle, R. A.
Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David
Wilkinson, John


McLaren, Martin
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon
Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick


Maclean, Sir Fitzroy
Ridley, Hn. Nicholas
Woodhouse, Hn. Christopher


McMaster, Stanley
Ridsdale, Julian
Woodnutt, Mark


Macmillan, Maurice (Farnham)
Rippon, Rt. Hn. Geoffrey
Wylie, Rt. Hn. N. R.


McNair-Wilson, Michael
Roberts, Michael (Cardiff, N.)
Younger, Hn, George


McNair-Wilson, Patrick (New Forest)
Roberts, Wyn (Conway)



Maddan, Martin
Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)



Madel, David
Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Maginnis, John E.
Rost, Peter
Mr. Paul Hawkins and


Marples, Rt. Hn. Ernest
Royle, Anthony
Mr. Walter Clegg.


Marten, Neil

Amendment proposed: No. 856, in page 81, line 4, at end insert:
() No court shall commit a person to prison for breach of any order made in proceedings brought under this Act.—[Mr. Heffer.]

Division No. 186.]
AYES
[6.45 p.m.


Abse, Leo
Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Bradley, Tom


Albu, Austen
Barnett, Joel
Brown, Bob (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne,W.)


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Beaney, Alan
Brown, Hugh D. (G'gow, Provan)


Allen, Scholefield
Bennett, James (Glasgow, Bridgeton)
Brown, Ronald (Shoreditch &amp; F'bury)


Archer, Peter (Rowley Regis)
Bidwell, Sydney
Buchan, Norman


Armstrong, Ernest
Bishop, E. S.
Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)


Ashley, Jack
Blenkinsop, Arthur
Callaghan, Rt. Hn. James


Ashton, Joe
Boardman, H. (Leigh)
Campbell, I. (Dunbartonshire, W.)


Atkinson, Norman
Booth, Albert
Cant, R. B.

Question put, That the Amendment be made:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 254, Noes 284.

Carmichael, Neil
Huckfield, Leslie
Palmer, Arthur


Carter, Ray (Birmingh'm, Northfield)
Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey)
Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles


Carter-Jones, Lewis (Eccles)
Hughes, Mark (Durham)
Parker, John (Dagenham)


Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara
Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Parry, Robert (Liverpool, Exchange)


Clark, David (Colne Valley)
Hunter, Adam
Pavitt, Laurie


Cocks, Michael (Bristol, S.)
Irvine,Rt.Hn.SirArthur(Edge Hill)
Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred


Cohen, Stanley
Janner, Greville
Pendry, Tom


Coleman, Donald
Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Pentland, Norman


Concannon, J. D.
Jeger,Mrs.Lena(H'b'n&amp;St.P'cras,S.)
Perry, Ernest G.


Conlan, Bernard
Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)
Prentice, Rt. Hn. Reg.


Corbet, Mrs. Freda
John, Brynmor
Prescott, John


Cox, Thomas (Wandsworth,C.)
Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)
Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)


Crawshaw, Richard
Johnson, James (K'ston-on-Hull, W.)
Probert, Arthur


Cronin, John
Johnson, Walter (Derby, S.)
Rankin, John


Crosland, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Jones, Barry (Flint, E.)
Reed, D. (Sedgefield)


Cunningham, G. (Islington, S.W.)
Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Rees, Merlyn (Leeds, S.)


Dalyell, Tam
Jones,Rt.Hn.Sir Elwyn(W.Ham,S.)
Rhodes, Geoffrey


Darling, Rt. Hn. George
Judd, Frank
Richard, Ivor


Davidson, Arthur
Kaufman, Gerald
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)


Davies, Denzil (Llanelly)
Kelley, Richard
Roberts,Rt.Hn.Goronwy(Caernarvon)


Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)
Kerr, Russell
Robertson, John (Paisley)


Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Kinnock, Neil
Roderick, CaerwynE.(Br'c'n&amp;Radnor)


Davies, S. O. (Merthyr Tydfil)
Lambie, David
Rodgers, William (Stockton-on-Tees)


Davis, Clinton (Hackney, C.)
Lamond, James
Roper, John


Deakins, Eric
Latham, Arthur
Rose, Paul B.


de Freitas, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey
Lawson, George
Ross, Rt. Hn. William (Kilmarnock)


Delargy, H. J.
Leadbitter Ted
Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-under-Lyne)


Dell, Rt. Hn. Edmund
Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick
Shore, Rt. Hn. Peter (Stepney)


Dempsey, James
Leonard, Dick
Short,Rt.Hn.Edward(N'c'tle-u-Tyne)


Doig, Peter
Lestor, Miss Joan
Short, Mrs. Renée (W'hampton,N.E.)


Dormand, J. D.
Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham N.)
Silkin, Hn. S. C. (Dulwich)


Douglas, Dick (Stirlingshire, E.)
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Sillars, James


Douglas-Mann, Bruce
Lipton, Marcus
Silverman, Julius


Driberg, Tom
Lomas, Kenneth
Skinner, Dennis


Duffy, A. E. P.
Loughlin, Charles
Small, William


Dunn, James A.
Lyon, Alexander W. (York)
Smith, John (Lanarkshire, N.)


Dunnett, Jack
Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)
Spearing, Nigel


Eadie, Alex
Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson
Spriggs, Leslie


Edelman, Maurice
McBride, Neil
Stallard, A. W.


Edwards, Robert (Bilston)
McCartney, Hugh
Steel, David


Edwards, William (Merioneth)
McElhone, Frank
Stewart, Donald (Western Isles)


Ellis, Tom
McGuire, Michael
Stewart, Rt. Hn. Michael (Fulham)


English, Michael
Mackenzie, Gregor
Stoddart, David (Swindon)


Evans, Fred
Mackie, John
Stonehouse, Rt. Hn. John


Fernyhough, Rt. Hn. E.
Mackintosh, John P.
Strang, Gavin


Fisher, Mrs.Doris(B'ham,Ladywood)
Maclennan, Robert
Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R.


Fitch, Alan (Wigan)
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)
Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley


Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)
McNamara, J. Kevin
Swain, Thomas


Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
MacPherson, Malcolm
Thomas, Rt.Hn.George(Cardiff,W.)


Foley, Maurice
Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield, E.)
Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)


Foot, Michael
Marks, Kenneth
Thomson, Rt. Hn. G. (Dundee, E.)


Ford, Ben
Marquand, David
Tinn, James


Forrester, John
Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy
Tuck, Raphael


Fraser, John (Norwood)
Mayhew, Christopher
Urwin, T. W.


Freeson, Reginald
Meacher, Michael
Varley, Eric G.


Galpern, Sir Myer
Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert
Wainwright, Edwin


Gilbert, Dr. John
Mendelson, John
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


Ginsburg, David
Mikardo, Ian
Wallace, George


Golding, John
Millan, Bruce
Watkins, David


Gourlay, Harry
Miller, Dr. M. S.
Weitzman, David


Grant, George (Morpeth)
Miller, Dr. M. S.
Wellbeloved, James


Grant, John D. (Islington, E.)
Milne, Edward (Blyth)
Wells, William (Walsall, N.)


Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside)
Molloy, William
White, James (Glasgow, Pollok)


Griffiths, Will (Exchange)
Morgan, Elysian (Cardiganshire)
Whitehead, Phillip


Grimond, Rt. Hn. J.
Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)
Whitlock, William


Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)
Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick


Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)
Morris, Rt. Hn. John (Aberavon)
Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)


Hannan, William (G'gow, Maryhill)
Moyle, Roland
William, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)


Hardy, Peter
Mulley, Rt. Hn. Frederick
Williams, W. T. (Warrington)


Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
Murray, Ronald King
Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)


Hart, Rt. Hn. Judith
Ogden, Eric
Wilson, Rt. Hn. Harold (Huyton)


Hattersley, Roy
O'Halloran, Michael
Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)


Heffer, Eric S.
O'Malley, Brian



Hilton, W. S.
Oram, Bert
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Hooson, Emlyn
Oswald, Thomas
Mr. Joseph Harper and


Horam, John
Paget, R. T.
Mr. William Hamling.


Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas




Howell, Denis (Small Heath)






NOES


Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)
Atkins, Humphrey
Baker, W. H. K. (Banff)


Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)
Awdry, Daniel
Balniel, Lord


Astor, John
Baker, Kenneth (St. Marylebone)
Barber, Rt. Hn. Anthony







Batsford, Brian
Gower, Raymond
Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)


Bell, Ronald
Grant, Anthony (Harrow, C.)
Moate, Roger


Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torquay)
Gray, Hamish
Molyneaux, James


Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gosport)
Green, Alan
Money, Ernie


Benyon, W.
Grieve, Percy
Monks, Mrs. Connie


Berry, Hn. Anthony
Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)
Montgomery, Fergus


Biffen, John
Grylls, Michael
More, Jasper


Biggs-Davison, John
Gummer, Selwyn
Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh)


Blaker, Peter
Gurden, Harold
Morgan-Giles, Rear-Adm.


Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S.W.)
Hall, Miss Joan (Keighley)
Mudd, David


Body, Richard
Hall, John (Wycombe)
Murton, Oscar


Boscawen, Robert
Hall-Davis, A. G. F.
Nabarro, Sir Gerald


Bossom, Sir Clive
Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
Neave, Airey


Bowden, Andrew
Hannam, John (Exeter)
Nicholls, Sir Harmar


Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. John
Harrison, Brian (Maldon)
Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael


Braine, Bernard
Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere
Normanton, Tom


Bray, Ronald
Haselhurst, Alan
Nott, John


Brewis, John
Havers, Michael
Onslow, Cranley


Brocklebank-Fowler, Christopher
Hay, John
Oppenheim, Mrs. Sally


Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
Hayhoe, Barney
Orr, Capt. L. P. S.


Bruce Gardyne, J.
Heseltine, Michael
Osborn, John


Bryan, Paul
Hicks, Robert
Owen, Idris (Stockport, N.)


Buchanan-Smith, Alick(Angus,N&amp;M)
Higgins, Terence L.
Page, Graham (Crosby)


Buck, Antony
Hiley, Joseph
Page, John (Harrow, W.)


Bullus, Sir Eric
Hill, John E. B. (Norfolk, S.)
Parkinson, Cecil (Enfield, W.)


Butler, Adam (Bosworth)
Hill, James (Southampton, Test)
percival, Ian


Campbell, Rt.Hn.G.(Moray&amp;Nairn)
Holland, Philip
Pike, Miss Mervyn


Carlisle, Mark
Holt, Miss Mary
Pink, R. Bonner


Cary, Sir Robert
Hordern, Peter
Pounder, Rafton


Channon, Paul
Hornby, Richard
Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch


Chapman, Sydney
Hornsby-Smith,Rt.Hn.Dame Patricia
Price, David (Eastleigh)


Chataway, Rt. Hn. Christopher
Howe, Hn. Sir Geoffrey (Reigate)
Prior, Rt. Hn. J. M. L.


Chichester-Clark, R.
Howell, David (Guildford)
Proudfoot, Wilfred


Churchill, W. S.
Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, N.)
Pym, Rt. Hn. Francis


Clark, William (Surrey, E.)
Hunt, John
Quennell, Miss J. M.


Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Hutchison, Michael Clark
Raison, Timothy


Clegg, Walter
Iremonger, T. L.
Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James


Cockeram, Eric
James, David
Rawlinson, Rt. Hn. Sir Peter


Cooke, Robert
Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)
Redmond, Robert


Coombs, Derek
Jessel, Toby
Reed, Laurance (Bolton, E.)


Cooper, A. E.
Johnson Smith, G. (E. Grinstead)
Rees, Peter (Dover)


Cordle, John
Jopling, Michael
Rees-Davies, W. R.


Corfield, Rt. Hn. Frederick
Joseph, Rt. Hn. Sir Keith
Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David


Cormack, Patrick
Kilfedder, James
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon


Costain, A. P.
King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)
Ridley, Hn. Nicholas


Critchley, Julian
King, Tom (Bridgwater)
Ridsdale, Julian


Crouch, David
Kinsey, J. R.
Rippon, Rt. Hn. Geoffrey


Crowder, F. P.
Kirk, Peter
Roberts, Michael (Cardiff, N.)


Curran, Charles
Kitson, Timothy
Roberts, Wyn (Conway)


Dalkeith, Earl of
Knight, Mrs. Jill
Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)


Davies, Rt. Hn. John (Knutsford)
Knox, David
Rost, Peter


d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry
Lambton, Antony
Russell, Sir Ronald


d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Maj.-Gen. Jack
Lane, David
St. John-Stevas, Norman


Digby, Simon Wingfield
Langford-Holt, Sir John
Scott, Nicholas


Dixon, Piers
Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry
Scott-Hopkins, James


Dodds-Parker, Douglas
Le Marchant, Spencer
Sharples, Richard


Drayson, G. B.
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh &amp; Whitby)


du Cann, Rt. Hon. Edward
Lloyd, Ian (P'tsm'th, Langstone)
Shelton, William (Clapham)


Dykes, Hugh
Longden, Gilbert
Simeons, Charles


Eden, Sir John
Loveridge, John
Skeet, T. H. H.


Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)
MacArthur, Ian
Smith, Dudley (W'wick &amp; L'mington)


Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)
McCrindle, R. A.
Soref, Harold


Emery, Peter
McLaren, Martin
Speed, Keith


Eyre, Reginald
Maclean, Sir Fitzroy
Spence, John


Farr, John
McMaster, Stanley
Sproat, Iain


Fell, Anthony
Macmillan, Maurice (Farnham)
Stainton, Keith


Fenner, Mrs. Peggy
McNair-Wilson, Michael
Stanbrook, Ivor


Finsberg, Geoffrey (Hampstead)
McNair-Wilson, Patrick (NewForest)
Stewart-Smith, D. G. (Belper)


Fisher, Nigel (Surbiton)
Maddan, Martin
Stodart, Anthony (Edinburgh, W.)


Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
Madel, David
Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M.


Fortescue, Tim
Maginnis, John E.
Stokes, John


Foster, Sir John
Marples, Rt. Hn. Ernest
Stuttaford, Dr. Tom


Fraser,Rt.Hn.Hugh(St'fford &amp;Stone)
Marten, Neil
Sutcliffe, John


Fry, Peter
Mather, Carol
Tapsell, Peter


Galbraith, Hn. T. G.
Maude, Angus
Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)


Gardner, Edward
Maudling, Rt. Hn. Reginald
Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)


Gibson-Watt, David
Mawby, Ray
Taylor, Robert (Croydon, N. W.)


Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)
Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.
Tebbit, Norman


Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)
Meyer, Sir Anthony
Temple, John M.


Glyn, Dr. Alan
Mills, Peter (Torrington)
Thatcher, Rt. Hn. Mrs. Margaret


Godber, Rt. Hn. J. B.
Mills, Peter (Torrington)
Thomas, John Stradling (Monmouth)


Goodhart, Philip
Mills, Stratton (Belfast, N.)
Thomas, Rt. Hn. Peter (Hendon, S.)


Goodhew, Victor
Miscampbell, Norman
Thomas, Rt. Hn. Peter (Croydon, S.)


Gorst, John
Mitchell,Lt.-Col.C.(Aberdeenshire,W.)
Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon, S.)







Tilney, John
Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek
Wilkinson, John


Trafford, Dr. Anthony
Wall, Patrick
Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick


Trew, Peter
Walters, Dennis
Woodhouse, Hn. Christopher


Tugendhat, Christopher
Ward, Dame Irene
Wylie, Rt. Hn. N. R.


Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H.
Warren, Kenneth
Younger, Hn. George


van Straubenzee, W. R.
Weatherill, Bernard



Vickers, Dame Joan
Wells, John (Maidstone)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Waddington, David
White, Roger (Gravesend)
Mr. Paul Hawkins and


Walder, David (Clitheroe)
Wiggin, Jerry
Mr. Hugh Rossi.


Walker, Rt. Hn. Peter (Worcester)

Question proposed, That the Clause stand part of the Bill.

Mr. John Fraser: During the course of an intervention in the discussion on the first Amendment to the Clause, the Solicitor-General indicated that he would say something to the Committee about legal aid. I raised the matter on Second Reading, in the course of a point of order, and on the last Amendment, and I have not had an answer. This shows the incredible difficulty in which the Government find themselves, in that they cannot make appropriate announcements to the Committee, about matters which are germane and important to the Bill, because of the Guillotine.
In advocating that there ought to be legal aid, if legal aid is given in the National Industrial Relations Court we on this side of the Committee do not regard it as in any way mitigating or excusing the existence of that court and the legal apparatus suggested. The main point is that there should be legal aid for a number of other proceedings, such as redundancy payments, applications to tribunals, and claims for damages for unfair dismissals, matters with which we on this side of the Committee agree, and on which we believe that people ought to have the right kind of legal assistance. We advocate legal aid for that purpose and that alone.

Mr. John Loveridge: I welcome the Clause. It is right that there should not be powers for the court to compel directly a man either to work or not to work. Although there are restrictions on direct legal proceedings by the court itself under the Clause, very large powers are retained where a person is in breach of an agreement and is brought before a court with a view to obtaining compensation. It is important that such major powers should be restricted to the higher court in their application. The Industrial Court has very real powers. It can award substantial damages. It can enforce its orders through contempt pro-

ceedings, with all that that means as a consequence. It must have the powers to be effective as a court. But the possible damages against individuals could be large, even ruinous. The savings of a man's life could be at risk. There is no limit to the civil damages which might be awarded. In these circumstances I hope that the Government will consider extending the provisions of legal aid, which is available in civil courts, to proceedings before the Industrial Court.
Big organisations can and should pay their own way, but the small man, a shop steward out on a limb on his own without union support, or a very small employer, should be able to apply for legal aid. What is sauce for the goose should also be sauce for the gander. Any party to a dispute, not only the defendants but the complainants as well, ought to be able to apply for legal aid.
The belief that there should be provision for legal aid commands widespread support on both sides of the Committee. I first put down a new Clause advocating that on 19th January, and I quickly gained the welcome support of many hon. Members on this side of the Committee. I had no trouble in obtaining signatures because the essential justness and fairness of the proposal was easily seen. The aim was that individuals should not be penalised for lack of funds. Fifty names were put down on 5th February, and I was not surprised—indeed, I was pleased and honoured—when this was supported on 11th February by the right hon. Lady the Member for Blackburn (Mrs. Castle), who is also asking for the provision of legal aid, though her proposals were on a wider basis than my own.
There is wide support on both sides for this proposal. I therefore hope that the Government will agree to ask the Lord Chancellor in due course to take the necessary action to secure that legal aid is available before the Industrial Court when the Bill becomes law. Many of us will be grateful and satisfied if the


Government can see their way to doing this. We do not wish this for a lawyers' paradise. We wish it as a simple Measure to ensure fair play when so much new law is being made.

The Solicitor-General: rose—

Dame Irene Ward: rose—

The Temporary Chairman: The Solicitor-General—I am sorry. Dame Irene Ward. [Interruption.] Is the hon. Member for Doncaster (Mr. Harold Walker) protesting at the fact that I have called the hon. Lady for Tynemouth (Dame Irene Ward)?

Mr. Harold Walker: No, certainly not, Mr. Jennings. I am protesting at the fact that we have to suffer the imposition of a guillotine and then the Government take up the time which is available.

The Temporary Chairman: There is no restriction of speech in the Chamber, even under the guillotine.

Mr. Michael Jopling: Further to that point of order—

The Temporary Chairman: It was not a point of order. I asked the hon. Member for Doncaster what lie meant.

7.0 p.m.

Dame Irene Ward: As I was one of the original signatories to the new Clause dealing with the very important matter of legal aid, I want to give encouragement to the Solicitor-General to accept the argument which has been adduced on both sides. This is an important matter, because I often think that when Government legislation is being considered the small man does not have his case put as adequately as cases are argued by, for instance, my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Hertfordshire, East (Sir D. Walker-Smith).
I am interested in protecting the rights of the individual. It is important that adequate legal aid, when it is required, should be available to help the ordinary man through the intricacies of this complicated Bill.
I shall not take up too much of the Committee's time, but as a speech was made from the other side in support of

the case for legal aid I thought that for once the Opposition might be pleased to know that both sides agree. [Interruption.] Be quiet! Hon. Members opposite are only wasting the Committee's time, and I shall stay here until I have my say.

Mrs. Castle: The hon. Lady is wasting our time.

Dame Irene Ward: I shall not be put out by the right hon. Lady in any circumstances.
I hope that, in spite of the right hon. Lady's opposition, the Solicitor-General will agree to this. I know full well that the right hon. Lady does not like my speaking, any more than I like her speaking. If out of this controversy the decision is taken that legal aid shall be available in response to the case which has been so admirably argued on both sides, those on the Government front bench will be able to say, "Thank goodness that for once we have agreed. We are under a duty to see that the small man and the small woman have legal protection if they want it".

Mr. Jopling: On a point of order, Mr. Jennings. Can you tell us how the Committee can be protected from the sort of barracking which has been coming from the other side, particularly as hon. Members opposite have made such a fuss about the number of people who took part in demonstrations in London on Sunday and when, until the last two minutes, there have been fewer than 20 Opposition Members present?

The Temporary Chairman: Order. Barracking is not a monopoly of either side.

The Solicitor-General: I rise now to answer the point which has been made in this short debate and which was put to me by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Hertfordshire, East (Sir D. Walker-Smith) in the debate on Amendment No. 854.
It is the Government's intention that legal aid should be available in proceedings before the National Industrial Relations Court. No provisions are necessary in the Bill to secure that, because regulations can be made by the Lord Chancellor under the existing legislation to achieve that end.
The intention is that legal aid will be available in the National Industrial Relations Court on the same terms and conditions as in other courts, and available, therefore, to individuals and not to trade unions or organisations or bodies corporate, as is the current position. Legal aid in other courts has always been confined to individuals, and the same procedure follows through here. Individuals, be they employees or employers, are less well placed than any corporate body, and qualify on that principle for legal aid before that court.
The hon. Member for Norwood (Mr. John Fraser), in contrast to my hon. Friend the Member for Hornchurch (Mr. Loveridge), has also argued that legal aid should be available for industrial tribunals. The position of industrial tribunals is that the principal jurisdictions they will be dealing with will be, first, on behalf of a union member against an organisation or union against which he has a complaint, and in many such cases his case will be put for him by the Registrar. Alternatively, it will be the individual—again, in most cases—making a claim in respect of unfair dismissal, comparable to that which he can now make in respect of redundancy payments.
The essence of the jurisdiction will be exactly the same, although over a wider field, for the benefit of the individual, as that which is now being exercised by the industrial tribunals. In 1968 the Lord Chancellor's Advisory Committee on the operation of the Legal Aid and Advice Act considered the question whether legal aid should be extended to industrial tribunals and then came to the conclusion that it should not be so extended.
In the view of the Government the same kind of issues and the same kind of questions will be being handled by industrial tribunals under the extended jurisdiction—claims by individuals against organisations comparable to those already heard by the tribunals.
The tribunals are meant to, and do in fact, provide a simple informal justice in which the ordinary individual is made to feel and does feel at home, where he is able to represent himself, and often does, save in the cases where he has a trade union or association to represent him.
That set of considerations has led the Government to the conclusion that in respect of industrial tribunals we should not be justified in departing from the view expressed by the Lord Chancellor's Advisory Committee in 1968 in respect of these industrial tribunals.

Mr. Murray: Will the Solicitor-General bear in mind that under Clause 99 power to confer jurisdiction on the industrial tribunals in respect of damages for breach of a contract is contemplated? Is not this a matter in which legal aid would be most desirable? Will he not reconsider the matter?

The Solicitor-General: The hon. and learned Gentleman takes the point about Clause 99. That power is a power deriving from recommendations of Donovan and included in the last Government's Bill and designed to confer upon tribunals a jurisdiction previously exercisable by county courts. It is not a power which is being implemented by the Bill. It is a power to take power, and the question the hon. and learned Gentleman raises on that is something which would have to be considered when and if that power came to be exercised. The Government have included the provision there, and it is plain that we shall have to see how extensively the jurisdiction of the industrial tribunals is invoked, principally in respect of unfair dismissals as well as redundancy payments, before we can say whether that jurisdiction can be exercised soon or late. The question will then be considered.
As for the provisions of the Bill on industrial tribunals, the Government do not take the view that it is justifiable to depart from the current principle, but they have acceded to the arguments advanced by several hon. Members in favour of making it plain that legal aid will be available on the usual terms and in the usual way before the National Industrial Relations Court.

Mr. John Fraser: That reply is extremely disappointing. We want to express our dissatisfaction at the fact that legal aid will not be available at the tribunals. It will be available in the county court for damages for wrongful dismissal, and the damages or compensation in the tribunals would be much higher. That reply is very disappointing to a


large body of opinion in the country and the Committee.

The Solicitor-General: The industrial tribunals are being given jurisdiction and new rights, in respect of unfair dismissal and the rest. So we are advancing the frontiers of what people may claim, in the same way as was done in respect of redundancy payments.

Mr. Kenneth Lewis: Would I be right in assuming that under Clause 100, when there was an appeal from a tribunal to the National Industrial Relations Court, legal aid would then be available?

The Solicitor-General: Yes, legal aid would be available in respect of appeal, in the same way as in respect of initial hearings in the court.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 114 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 115

COLLECTIVE AGREEMENTS

Mr. McNamara: I beg to move Amendment No. 857, in page 81, line 5, leave out 'No court other than the Industrial Court' and insert:
'Only the Industrial Arbitration Board'.
I intend to be brief, because there are more important Clauses, but it is important that the Committee should appreciate the sort of hypocrisy which surrounds the adaptation of the phrase "Industrial Court" to this new name. An honourable and respected title is being stolen from the present Industrial Court and put on this evil creature which the Government have created.
The Industrial Court established by the 1919 Act has an honourable tradition. It has worked well and is respected on all sides of industry. It has reached conclusions, and it is a voluntary body. None of its decisions has been compulsory, but, the parties, because they went to arbitration voluntarily, have felt a moral duty to accept them.
This is the sort of institution which we wanted to have when we thought of improving industrial relations—not of compelling people to accept a decision but

of persuading them, by its fairness and by the knowledge and experience of those comprising the Court, that it was a just solution.
The old Industrial Court was made up of people respected on all sides of industry—distinguished employers' representatives and union representatives and independent members—who could bring to the court a wealth of industrial experience and knowledge of practical affairs which will be completely lacking in this new institution, which will be lawyer-dominated and will have on it a lawyer who will not even have to have had experience of industrial affairs.
Under Clause 88, it seems that the appointment as a judge on this Court will be second-best, because no judge will be appointed unless he so wishes. This option will not be open to those who appear before the court.
Therefore, to show the deception on the country and the Committee by the transference of this honourable name, to draw attention to the wealth of industrial experience which existed before, and because the decisions of the Industrial Court were morally persuasive, although not binding, and that is the attitude which we want in industrial relations, I hope that the Amendment will be accepted.

[Sir ROBERT GRANT-FERRIS in the Chair]

7.15 p.m.

The Solicitor-General: The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) confined his speech to a narrow point, and I wish to answer it equally narrowly. The National Industrial Relations Court is described by that name and is not expropriating the name of the Industrial Court. However, obviously, for the avoidance of any possible confusion, the functions of the Industrial Court are continuing by that body, renamed the Industrial Arbitration Board.
As the hon. Gentleman said, that has been its function. It is an arbitral court. That function will remain, and, more important, the functions of the Industrial Arbitration Board will be more extensive, because it will have the important role of securing that employers recognise unions when they have been obliged to recognise them. It will have the power of determining as an arbitration body


what terms the employer ought to accept if he refuses to recognise. So all the good work of the Industrial Court as we knew it will be continued.
The National Industrial Relations Court will develop the same kind of expertise and ability for the purpose of determining disputes, rather than arbitrating them, and will develop as a new authoritative structure alongside, but not in replacement of, the former Industrial Court. I therefore invite the Committee to conclude that there is no necessity to accept the Amendment.

Mrs. Castle: Of course all the good work of the Industrial Court as we knew it will continue in the Industrial Arbitration Board. The point which we are trying to make is that the good name of the old Industrial Court is being filched by the Government for the bad work of the National Industrial Relations Court. By using this name, by borrowing this term, the Government are hoping to carry over into the new court the kudos, the association with fair play and balanced representation, which attaches to the existing Industrial Court.
At no time have we had any explanation why the position of the N.I.R.C. has been changed from that of the existing court, not only in respect of its President, who we know will now be a High Court judge, thus changing the whole character of the court, but also in respect of the members who are drawn from what is supposed to be both sides of industry. There is a remarkable contrast here between the constitution of the Industrial Court and that of the new National Industrial Relations Court.
Why have the Government moved away from the definitions of the present Industrial Court, which lay down that it shall consist of persons to be appointed by the Minister of Labour, some of whom shall be independent, some representing employers and some representing workmen—

Division No. 187.]
AYES
[7.21 p.m.


Albu, Austen
Bennett, James (Glasgow, Bridgeton)
Callaghan, Rt. Hn. James


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Bidwell, Sydney
Campbell, I. (Dunbartonshire, W.)


Allen Scholefield
Bishop, E. S.
Cant, R. B.


Archer, Peter (Rowley Regis)
Blenkinsop, Arthur
Carmichael, Neil


Armstrong, Ernest
Booth, Albert
Carter, Ray (Birmingh'm, Northfield)


Ashley, Jack
Bradley, Tom
Carter-Jones, Lewis (Eccles)


Ashton, Joe
Brown, Bob (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne,W.)
Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara


Atkinson, Norman
Brown, Hugh D. (G'gow, Provan)
Clark, David (Colne Valley)


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Brown, Ronald (Shoreditch &amp; F'bury)
Cocks, Michael (Bristol, S.)


Barnett, Joel
Buchan, Norman
Cohen, Stanley


Beaney, Alan
Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)
Coleman, Donald

with, in addition, one or two women? Why has that phraseology been changed? Why are we now told that these two sides are to be nominated by the Government simply on the basis of having special knowledge or experience of industrial relations?

As a result of the constitution of the present Industrial Court, we have on the employees' panel a weighty representation of the trade union movement. We have men like Mr. Bothwell of the T.S.S.A., Lord Douglass of the Iron and Steel Confederation, Sir Sidney Ford of the N.U.M., Mr. Morton, of the Electircal Power Engineers, Mr. Robinson of the National Union of Boot and Shoe Operatives, and Lord Wright of the Amalgamated Weavers Association.

Do hon. Members believe that any trade unionist of this standing will serve on this panel of the right hon. Gentleman's Industrial Relations Court? The answer is "No", and the Government know it. It will be a travesty of a court. It will, in fact, be the complete creature of the Government, and I suggest that this is why the composition terminology has been changed.

It is because the Government know that they will not get representatives of work people of this calibre to serve on the employees' panel that they have given themselves a let-out, leaving themselves free to choose people who the Government say have special knowledge or experience of industrial relations. That might even include the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. Waddington) simply because, in the Government's view, he has made one speech on this Measure and should be a member. It will be a travesty of a representative court and the country should be aware of it.

Question put, That the Amendment be made.

The Committee divided: Ayes 245, Noes 284.

Concannon, J. D.
John, Brynmor
Parry, Robert (Liverpool, Exchange)


Conlan, Bernard
Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)
Pavitt, Laurie


Corbet, Mrs. Freda
Johnson, James (K'ston-on-Hull, W.)
Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred


Cox, Thomas (Wandsworth, C.)
Johnson, Walter (Derby, S.)
Pendry, Tom


Crawshaw, Richard
Jones, Barry (Flint, E.)
Pentland, Norman


Crosland, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Perry, Ernest G.


Cunningham, G. (Islington, S.W.)
Jones,Rt.Hn.Sir Elwyn(W.Ham,S.)
Prentice, Rt. Hn. Reg.


Dalyell, Tam
Jones, Gwynoro (Carmarthen)
Prescott, John


Darling, Rt. Hn. George
Judd, Frank
Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)


Davidson, Arthur
Kaufman, Gerald
Probert, Arthur


Davies, Denzil (Llanelly)
Kelley, Richard
Rankin, John


Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)
Kerr, Russell
Reed, D. (Sedgefield)


Davies, S. O. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Kinnock, Neil
Rees, Merlyn (Leeds, S.)


Davis, Clinton (Hackney, C.)
Lambie, David
Rhodes, Geoffrey


Deakins, Eric
Lamond, James
Richard, Ivor


de Freitas, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey
Latham, Arthur
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)


Delargy, H. J.
Lawson, George
Roberts,Rt.Hn.Goronwy(Caernarvon)


Dell, Rt. Hn. Edmund
Leadbitter, Ted
Robertson, John (Paisley)


Dempsey, James
Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick
Roderick, Caerwyn E.(Br'c'n&amp;R'dnor)


Doig, Peter
Leonard, Dick
Rodgers, William (Stockton-on-Tees)


Dormand, J. D.
Lestor, Miss Joan
Roper, John


Douglas, Dick (Stirlingshire, E.)
Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham, N.)
Rose, Paul B.


Douglas-Mann, Bruce
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Ross, Rt. Hn. William (Kilmarnock)


Driberg, Tom
Lipton, Marcus
Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-under-Lyne)


Dunn, James A.
Lomas, Kenneth
Shore, Rt. Hn. Peter (Stepney)


Dunnett, Jack
Loughlin, Charles
Short, Rt. Hn. Edward (N 'c'tle-u-Tyne)


Eadie, Alex
Lyon, Alexander W. (York)
Short, Mrs. Renée (W'hampton,N.E.)


Edelman, Maurice
Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)
Silkin, Hn. S. C. (Dulwich)


Edwards, Robert (Bilston)
Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson
Sillars, James


Edwards, William (Merioneth)
McBride, Neil
Silverman, Julius


Ellis, Tom
McCartney, Hugh
Skinner, Dennis


English, Michael
McElhone, Frank
Small, William


Evans, Fred
McGuire, Michael
Smith, John (Lanarkshire, N.)


Fernyhough, Rt. Hn. E.
Mackenzie, Gregor
Spearing, Nigel


Fisher, Mrs. Doris(B'ham,Ladywood)
Mackie, John
Spriggs, Leslie


Fitch, Alan (Wigan)
Mackintosh, John P.
Stewart, Donald (Western Isles)


Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Maclennan, Robert
Stewart, Rt. Hn. Michael (Fulham)


Foley, Maurice
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)
Stoddart, David (Swindon)


Foot, Michael
McNamara, J. Kevin
Stonehouse, Rt. Hn. John


Forrester, John
MacPherson, Malcolm
Strang, Gavin


Fraser, John (Norwood)
Mahon, Simon (Bootle)
Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R.


Galpern, Sir Myer
Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield, E.)
Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley


Gilbert, Dr. John
Marks, Kenneth
Swain, Thomas


Ginsburg, David
Marquand, David
Taverne, Dick


Golding, John
Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy
Thomas,Rt.Hn.George(Cardiff,W.)


Gourlay, Harry
Mayhew, Christopher
Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)


Grant, George (Morpeth)
Meacher, Michael
Thomson, Rt. Hn. G. (Dundee, E.)


Grant, John D. (Islington, E.)
Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert
Tinn, James


Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside)
Mendelson, John
Tomney, Frank


Griffiths, Will (Exchange)
Mikardo, Ian
Tuck, Raphael


Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
Millan, Bruce
Urwin, T. W.


Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)
Miller, Dr. M. S.
Varley, Eric G.


Hannan, William (G'gow, Maryhill)
Milne, Edward (Blyth)
Wainwright, Edwin


Hardy, Peter
Molloy, William
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
Morgan, Elysian (Cardiganshire)
Wallace, George


Hart, Rt. Hn. Judith
Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)
Watkins, David


Hattersley, Roy
Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)
Weitzman, David


Heffer, Eric S.
Morris, Rt. Hn. John (Aberavon)
Wellbeloved, James


Hilton, W. S.
Moyle, Roland
Wells, William (Walsall, N.)


Horam, John
Mulley, Rt. Hn. Frederick
White, James (Glasgow, Pollok)


Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Murray, Ronald King
Whitehead, Phillip


Howell, Denis (Small Heath)
Ogden, Eric
Whitlock, William


Huckfield, Leslie
O'Halloran, Michael
Willey. Rt. Hn. Frederick


Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey)
O'Malley, Brian
Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)


Hughes, Mark (Durham)
Oram, Bert
Willams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)


Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Orme, Stanley
Williams, W. T. (Warrington)


Hunter, Adam
Oswald, Thomas
Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)


Irvine,Rt.Hn.SirArthur(Edge Hill)
Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, Sutton)
Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)


Janner, Greville
Paget, R. T.



Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Palmer, Arthur
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Jeger,Mrs.Lena(H'b'n&amp;St.P'cras.S.)
Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles
Mr. Joseph Harper and


Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)
Parker, John (Dagenham)
Mr. William Hamling




NOES


Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)
Batsford, Brian
Blaker, Peter


Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)
Bell, Ronald
Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S.W.)


Astor, John
Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torquay)
Body, Richard


Atkins, Humphrey
Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gosport)
Boscawen, Robert


Awdry, Daniel
Benyon W.
Bossom, Sir Clive


Baker, Kenneth (St. Marylebone)
Berry, Hn. Anthony
Bowden, Andrew


Baker, W. H. K. (Banff)
Biffen, John
Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. John


Balniel, Lord
Biggs-Davison, John
Brains, Bernard







Bray, Ronald
Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere
Oppenheim, Mrs. Sally


Brewis, John
Haselhurst, Alan
Orr, Capt, L. P. S.


Brocklebank-Fowler, Christopher
Havers, Michael
Osborn, John


Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
Hay, John
Owen, Idris (Stockport, N.)


Bruce-Gardyne, J.
Hayhoe, Barney
Page, Graham (Crosby)


Bryan, Paul
Heseltine, Michael
Page, John (Harrow, W.)


Buchanan-Smith, Alick(Angus,N&amp;M)
Hicks, Robert
Parkinson, Cecil (Enfield, W.)


Buck, Antony
Higgins, Terence L.
Percival, Ian


Bullus, Sir Eric
Hiley, Joseph
Pike, Miss Mervyn


Butler, Adam (Bosworth)
Hill, John E. B. (Norfolk, S.)
Pink, R. Bonner


Campbell, Rt.Hn.G.(Moray&amp;Nairn)
Hill, James (Southampton, Test)
Pounder, Rafton


Carlisle, Mark
Holland, Philip
Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch


Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert
Holt, Miss Mary
Price, David (Eastleigh)


Cary, Sir Robert
Hooson, Emlyn
Prior, Rt. Hn. J. M. L.


Channon, Paul
Hordern, Peter
Proudfoot, Wilfred


Chapman, Sydney
Hornby, Richard
Pym, Rt. Hn. Francis


Chataway, Rt. Hn. Christopher
Hornsby-Smith,Rt.Hn.Dame Patricia
Quennell, Miss J. M.


Chichester-Clark, R.
Howe, Hn. Sir Geoffrey (Reigate)
Raison, Timothy


Churchill,W. S.
Howell, David (Guildford)
Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James


Clark, William (Surrey, E.)
Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, N.)
Rawlinson, Rt. Hn. Sir Peter


Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Hunt, John
Redmond, Robert


Clegg, Walter
Hutchison, Michael Clark
Reed, Laurance (Bolton, E.)


Cockeram, Eric
Iremonger, T. L.
Rees, Peter (Dover)


Cooke, Robert
James, David
Roes-Davies, W. R.


Coombs, Derek
Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)
Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David


Cooper, A. E.
Jessel, Toby
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon


Corfield, Rt, Hn. Frederick
Johnson Smith, G. (E. Grinstead)
Ridley, Hn. Nicholas


Cormack, Patrick
Jopling, Michael
Ridsdale, Julian


Costain, A. P.
Joseph, Rt. Hn. Sir Keith
Rippon, Rt. Hn. Geoffrey


Critchley, Julian
Kaberry, Sir Donald
Roberts, Michael (Cardiff, N.)


Crouch, David
Kilfedder, James
Roberts, Wyn (Conway)


Crowder, F. P.
King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)
Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)


Curran, Charles
King, Tom (Bridgwater)
Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)


Dalkeith, Earl of
Kinsey, J. R.
Rost, Peter


Davies, Rt. Hn. John (Knutsford)
Kitson, Timothy
Royle, Anthony


d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry
Knight, Mrs. Jill
Russell, Sir Ronald


d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Maj.-Gen. Jack
Knox, David
Scott, Nicholas


Dean, Paul
Lambton, Antony
Scott-Hopkins, James


Digby, Simon Wingfield
Lane, David
Sharples, Richard


Dixon, Piers
Langford-Holt, Sir John
Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh &amp; Whitby)


Dodds-Parker, Douglas
Legge-Bourke, Sir John
Shelton, William (Clapham)


Drayson, G. B.
Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry
Simeons, Charles


du cann, Rt. Hn. Edward
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Skeet, T. H. H.


Dykes, Hugh
Lloyd, Rt.Hn.Geoffrey(Sut'nC'dfield)
Smith, Dudley (W' wick&amp;L'mington)


Eden, Sir John
Lloyd, Ian (P'tsm'th, Langstone)
Soref, Harold


Edward, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Longden, Gilbert
Speed, Keith


Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)
Loveridge, John
Spence, John


Elliott, R. W. (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne,N.)
MacArthur, Ian
Sproat, Iain


Emery, Peter
McCrindle, R. A.
Stainton, Keith


Farr, John
McLaren, Martin
Stanbrook, Ivor


Fell, Anthony
Maclean, Sir Fitzroy
Steel, David


Fenner, Mrs. Peggy
McMaster, Stanley
Stewart-Smith, D. G. (Belper)


Finsberg, Geoffrey (Hampstead)
Macmillan, Maurice (Farnham)
Stodart, Anthony (Edinburgh, W.)


Fisher, Nigel (Surbiton)
McNair-Wilson, Michael
Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M.


Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
McNair-Wilson, Patrick (NewForest)
Stokes, John


Fortescue, Tim
Maddan, Martin
Stuttaford, Dr. Tom


Foster, Sir John
Madel, David
Sutcliffe, John


Fraser,Rt.Hn,Hugh(St'fford &amp; Stone)
Maginnis, John E.
Tapsell, Peter


Fry, Peter
Marples, Rt. Hn. Ernest
Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)


Galbraith, Hn. T. G.
Marten, Neil
Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)


Gardner, Edward
Mather, Carol
Taylor, Robert (Croydon, N.W.)


Gibson-Watt, David
Mawby, Ray
Tebbit, Norman


Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)
Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.
Thatcher, Rt. Hn. Mrs. Marganet


Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)
Meyer, Sir Anthony
Thomas, John Stradling (Monmouth)


Glyn, Dr. Alan
Mills, Peter (Torrington)
Thomas, Rt. Hn. Peter (Hendon, S.)


Godber, Rt. Hn. J. B.
Mills, Stratton (Belfast, N.)
Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon, S.)


Goodhart, Philip
Miscampbell, Norman
Tilney, John


Goodhew, Victor
Mitchell, Lt.-Col.C.(Aberdeenshire, W)
Trafford, Dr. Anthony


Gorst, John
Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)
Trew, Peter


Gower, Raymond
Moate, Roger
Tugendhat, Christopher


Grant, Anthony (Harrow, C.)
Molyneaux, James
Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H.


Gray, Hamish
Money, Ernie
van Straubenzee, W. R.


Green, Alan
Monks, Mrs. Connie
Vickers, Dame Joan


Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)
Montgomery, Fergus
Waddington, David


Grimond, Rt. Hn, J.
More, Jasper
Walder, David (Clitheroe)


Grylls, Michael
Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh)
Walker, Rt. Hen. Peter (Worcester)


Gummer, Selwyn
Morgan-Giles, Rear-Adm.
Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek


Gurden, Harold
Mudd, David
Wall, Patrick


Hall, Miss Joan (Keighley)
Murton, Oscar
Walters, Dennis


Hall, John (Wycombe)
Nabarro, Sir Gerald
Ward, Dame Irene


Hall-Davis, A. G. F.
Neave, Airey
Warren, Kenneth


Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
Nicholls, Sir Harmar
Weatherill, Bernard


Hannam, John (Exeter)
Normanton, Tom
Wells, John (Maidstone)


Harrison, Brian (Maldon)
Nott, John
White, Roger (Gravesend)



Onslow, Cranley








Wiggin, Jerry
worsley, Marcus
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Wilkinson, John
Wylie, Rt. Hn. N. R.
Mr. Paul Hawkins and


Wolrige,-Gordon, Patrick
Younger, Hn. George
Mr. Reginald Eyre.


Woodhouse, Hn. Christopher

[Miss HARVIE ANDERSON in the Chair]

7.30 p.m.

Mr. David Stoddart: I beg to move Amendment No. 858, in page 81, line 11, leave out paragraph (b).
We have not had an opportunity to discuss the establishment, composition, powers or duties of the proposed new Industrial Courts, nor the procedures to be followed before those courts. Some of us believe that the new courts are designed to frighten and intimidate the working people. It is unprecedented to set up a new arm of the judiciary without proper discussion and debate, but, owing to the Government's alacrity in pressing the Bill through, that is what we have now done.
Having established a new arm of the judiciary, without proper discussion, we are now asked under Clause 115 to remove from our established and tested courts matters which have hitherto been dealt with by them, although, fortunately, relatively infrequently. There are trade unions which have agreed to enforceable contracts, and these have been enforceable in the normal courts, but it is now proposed to take that right away.
We on this side are entirely opposed to bringing the law into industrial relations. Experience shows that the best employee-employer relationships are brought about by good will, mutual respect and a desire to settle differences with the minimum harm to each party concerned. Bringing the law into industrial relations can only cause confusion and resentment. My hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) was entirely right when he said earlier today that a magician was needed to interpret the Bill.
In its first leading article yesterday, The Times said:
Mr. Scanlon has already got himself and other engineering union leaders into a Gilbertian situation with the Engineering Employers' Federation over one aspect of these tactics"—
that is, the tactics which the unions are pursuing in regard to the Bill.
For nearly two years the two sides have been negotiating a new procedure for settling

disputes in the industry, which both agree is urgently needed. There is no doubt that by now the deal would have been signed were it not for the fact that the union negotiators, led by Mr. Scanlon, are insisting that a specific 'non-legally binding' clause is written in.
It is a simple fact that an industry-wide agreement of this kind cannot in any circumstances become legally binding under the terms of the Industrial Relations Bill. This was one of the recommendations from industry which the Government rejected.
So we have a confusion here. On the one hand, Mr. Scanlon has said one thing, and on the other, The Times, with a great deal of expertise at its back, has said another.
Clause 32 has some relationship to Clause 115 in that under Clause 115 the court will have to enforce the provisions of Clause 32 relating to collective agreements. Clause 32 appears to make absolutely clear that Mr. Scanlon is right and that a procedure agreement, once signed, is enforceable in the courts.
This is a matter of prime importance, and we must have an answer from the Solicitor-General: who is right, the trade union leader or The Times? This is the sort of confusion which we are having on the Bill, and Clause 115 only confounds it further.

Mr. Murray: May I underline what my hon. Friend is saying and point out that under Clause 32(1) every collective agreement shall be conclusively presumed to be intended by the parties to be legally enforceable unless it contains a provision to the contrary. Under subsection (3), a collective agreement is so defined as to cover a procedure agreement, and one which has been negotiated collectively. Undoubtedly, therefore, it seems that my hon. Friend's view of the meaning of the Bill is correct.

Mr. Stoddart: I am obliged to my hon. and learned Friend. Before I conclude, I wish to repeat—

Mr. Orme: May I intervene to point out that the engineering employers will not sign that agreement until after the Bill becomes law. We have heard the Solicitor-General say that it cannot be retrospective, so the engineering employers are deliberately witholding their


signature because they believe that the Bill will apply.

Mr. Stoddart: Yes, that is a conclusion which the trade unions and the Committee can legitimately draw, and it underlines my point that it is vital that we have this matter clarified by the Solicitor-General today so that the negotiations may proceed on the York agreement.
We on this side are committed to a voluntary system of collective bargaining, the system which has been tried and tested and not found wanting over a long period. It will be a tragedy if our existing procedures are set aside and confined within new law and new courts. It will do infinite damage to industrial relations as we know them.

Mr. Gower: The hon. Gentleman the Member for Swindon (Mr. David Stoddart) usually speaks with studied moderation and does not use extravagant language, but he used a remarkable phrase today in objecting to paragraph (b) of the Clause. He said—I noted his words—"I believe that the new courts are designed to frighten and intimidate the working people". I hesitate to accuse the hon. Gentleman of saying something which he does not believe, but it is hard to credit that he can really believe that.
It is a strange world in which we are discussing the Bill. Throughout the country, and in the Committee itself, there is a remarkable campaign of grotesque misrepresentation of the aims of the Bill in general and of this Clause in particular.

Mr. Stoddart: I have talked to many people not only during my working life but in the past few weeks, when I have addressed trade union audiences of from 500 to 1,500, and I can say that ordinary working people are very frightened of the courts. That is my experience as a working person. They will be even more frightened of the Industrial Relations Court because it has been set up specifically to deal with them. My language, although it was perhaps a little extravagant, nevertheless represented what I truly believe that ordinary working people understand about the Bill and the Clause.

Mr. Gower: If ordinary working people have those beliefs they must be

fortified considerably by the activities of those who go among them and give false descriptions of what the Bill is designed to achieve. I cannot believe that the hon. Gentleman thinks that it is dangerous. He has not said that he does, and he is now trying to tone down his original statement by saying that he has discovered that belief while moving among working people. Does he believe that the court is designed to frighten and intimidate them?

Mr. Stoddart: I never say things that I do not honestly believe, either in this chamber or anywhere else I hope that the hon. Gentleman will grant me that. Having been engaged in negotiations, I know that I as a lay negotiator would be very frightened and intimated by the thought in the background of negotiations that I could be brought before the Industrial Relations Court and my assets and family perhaps put at risk because of a false move on my part.

Mr. Gower: If that be the case, the hon. Gentleman is not objecting to the second leg of the Clause, paragraph (b). cannot believe that he will have any misgivings about that in particular, because it would depend entirely on the free choice of the parties in coming to a collective agreement. As he pointed out, they may decide voluntarily to make an agreement binding, or they may elect to make it not binding. Obviously, if the parties to an agreement are to elect to make it binding there will be pretty hard bargaining on both sides and big concessions by one party or the other. In other words, if the parties elect to make an agreement binding and subject to this procedure, there will be a considerable concession by one of the parties.
The serious nature of the matter arises from our domestic economic problem, which is to fulfil our engagements in the markets of the world. We read today of the reaction of British Ford—[Interruption.]—an hon. Member groaned. British Ford has advised the parent American company not to invest heavily here on a proposed undertaking, but possibly to site it in another country. That shows how vital it is that we should have better machinery to make collective agreements worth while. That is the point—not to make them cruel or intolerable but to make them worth while to


both parties. It is no use having worth while agreements if there is no machinery for enforcement.

Mr. Orme: The hon. Gentleman made a passing reference to the Ford dispute. As the proposed new factory that we have heard so much about would not be completed and in operation until after the Bill came into effect, does not the hon. Gentleman think, from what the British Ford management has said, that the Bill obviously will play no part but will worsen the situation?

Mr. Gower: I do not need to make any connection between the two. The only thing that the Ford matter reveals is the chaotic state of our industrial relations in some parts of industry—not all. For a country so dependent on export industries even part of our industry may be vital in this connection.
It is not worth while having a beneficial agreement unless there is machinery to enforce it. That is why the second part of the Clause is very important if we are to have the sort of improvements that I sincerely hope the majority of people on both sides desire. We do not believe that the Bill or the Court is designed to frighten and intimidate people. They are, we hope, designed to fortify our law and to help—only help, because it cannot be done by this alone—to create something better than we have seen in recent years.

7.45 p.m.

The Solicitor-General: My hon. Friend the Member for Barry (Mr. Gower) has underlined the justification and motivation for the paragraph which is now being criticised. The Clause is designed to ensure that collective agreements which the parties wish to have enforceable can be enforced at the wish of either party to the agreement. It is not to be overlooked that the high probability is that the parties which will be most anxious to secure the assistance of the court will be the trade unions. In almost every country the overwhelming majority of cases brought before tribunals and courts are those brought by trade unions to establish, assert and have enforced the provisions they have had enshrined in procedure agreements for the protection of themselves and their members when something goes wrong.
I hope that the simple message put forward by the hon. Member for Swindon (Mr. David Stoddart), denouncing the very idea of bringing law into industrial relations, will not attract notice, attention or support. The one thing that cannot be asserted, despite what the hon. Member for Salford, West (Mr. Orme) said, is that our present voluntary system of industrial relations has "not been found wanting". The letter in today's issue of The Times from the British Ford Motor Company—

Mr. Orme: Ford has no confidence in the hon. and learned Gentleman's Bill.

The Solicitor-General: The hon. Gentleman has made his point once, and I will deal with it. The letter in today's issue of The Times from the managing director of the British Ford Motor Company is directed to the declining state of British industrial relations. The managing director sets out the figures as a result of which he says that Ford had to advise the American parent company as it did. It is that declining state that has led Governments of all parties and almost everyone concerned with the future of our country to conclude that something needs to be done, and that is what we are trying to do.

Mr. Loughlin: Surely the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Salford, West (Mr. Orme) is quite clear? The company has taken a decision not to build a factory that cannot be completed until after the operation of the Bill. The company is American and has had full experience of legislation like this. Therefore, it is an indictment of the Bill that the decision was taken.

The Solicitor-General: That was an astonishingly naïve and very sad intervention. We have not claimed for the Bill that we are producing something which will be instant or miraculous or complete in its effect. Rome was not built in a day, and the sadly declining condition of our industrial relations will not be remedied or reversed in a day or in a month or in a year. We know that it will be a long haul to get things right. The one thing I am challenging is the bland and complacent proposition that our present system has not been found wanting. It is as one of the remedies for the situation that this paragraph stands in the Clause. It is not a


frightening or intimidating provision. If it were deleted, the power to give rulings and enforce collective agreements would revert to the ordinary courts instead of remaining with the specially designed sophisticated National Industrial Relations Court to which it is now going.

Mr. Harold Walker: I hope that the hon. and learned Gentleman is going to reply to the important point about the statement in The Times yesterday. The first leader said:
It is a simple fact that an industry-wide agreement of this kind cannot, in any circumstances, become legally binding under the terms of the Industrial Relations Bill.
Has The Times got it right or wrong?

The Solicitor-General: I am coming to that. An agreement made now, before the Bill comes into force, is not affected by the Bill. The presumptions contained in Clause 32 about intended enforceability or non-enforceability do not affect them. [Interruption.] I do not know whether hon. Members opposite are interested in my answers.

Mr. Arthur Lewis: I am interested. I was saying that I have been in the Chamber long enough to have heard five hon. and learned Gentlemen giving five different legal opinions, each of them claiming to be right. That is why I was telling my hon. Friends that I could not say that I was going to accept what the hon. and learned Gentleman is now saying as being right. So many different legal opinions are being offered to us.

The Solicitor-General: I have been asked a number of questions and I will answer as best I can.
The Bill makes no difference to any agreements negotiated and concluded now. The presumptions in Clause 32 have no effect in relation to them. In regard to the present state of the law, under Section 4 of the 1871 Act a collective agreement signed between an employers' association and trade unions is not capable of being enforced now. Such an agreement, if it were arrived at now, would not be capable of having legal force because the law does not recognise that such a thing can have legal force. When the Bill is passed and Section 4 of the 1871 Act is repealed, an agreement between a trade union or federation of unions and an employers' association will attract the presumptions of Clause 32.
If the parties decided that they wanted it to be legally binding or decided not to exclude the presumptions, then it would be legally binding on the parties. The agreement of the parties, as Clause 32 makes clear, means agreement between an employers' association and a trade union or a federation of trade unions, so The Times had it wrong up to that point. But The Times had it right in that a nationwide or industry-wide agreement cannot be the subject of selective enforceability. Under the provisions of Clause 35 onwards, or by voluntary agreement, the matter could be made binding, which it could not be until after the Bill is through. But selectively enforceable agreements can only be made enforceable unit by unit by unit. That is the present position.

Mr. Orme: Then the hon. and learned Gentleman can say to the engineering employers that they are waiting in vain and that they might as well sign a new engineering industry agreement if they have any interest in the good industrial relations which the hon. and learned Gentleman purports to support.

The Solicitor-General: It would not be right for me, without more detailed knowledge of the postures of the parties concerned, to proffer advice on what they should do. What I have said about the existing state of the law is clear. Nothing will presumptively attach to an agreement which is concluded now. Section 4 of the 1871 Act is still in being to stop it being binding in that way.
I commend this subsection to the Committee on the basis that it will be to the benefit of both sides in any agreement they decide to make binding and ensure that the agreement will be considered and determined and enforced for either side before the National Industrial Relations Court, with its special expertise in the subject.

Mr. Heifer: I shall not keep the Committee long but I want to get this position clarified. Not only did The Times make this statement. Mr. Vincent Hanna, in the Sunday Times two weeks ago, made the same point. I thought that there was probably nothing in it, and I dismissed it when Mr. Hanna said it. But when The Times repeated the statement yesterday, we became somewhat worried.
When the Solicitor-General talks in terms of selective enforceability, what


precisely does he mean? Does he mean that, if the national agreement has a clause stating that it shall not be enforceable, then it cannot be enforceable anywhere in the country except in localities where, as often happens, various regional modifications are made? Does it mean that the agreement will not be enforceable unless a Clause is inserted in the localities as well? This point must be cleared up.
I have one comment to make on the speech of the hon. Member for Barry (Mr. Gower). He said that throughout the country there is grotesque misrepresentation of the Bill. I have noticed that, in the past few days, hon. Members opposite have become increasingly defensive about the Bill. That is because the truth about the Bill is now getting across to the people. Hon. Members accuse us of grotesquely misrepresenting the Bill but the truth of the matter is that the people are now beginning to understand precisely what the Bill is all about. It also means that many employers who were previously quite happy to go along with the Bill are realising that it is not the panacea for industrial relations.

Sir Harmar Nicholls: I will give the hon. Gentleman an example of grotesque exaggeration. I attended a protest meeting. They allowed me to have the opening speech and then I listened to speeches by trade union leaders. They explained in detail and with great emotion that the new court would be presided over by a bewigged lawyer and no one else. They knew when they said it that there would be two assessors at the side of the judge—men with real understanding of the people. Was not that a grotesque misrepresentation?

Mr. Heffer: There may well be an individual trade union official who has not properly understood the Bill, but the fact is that the T.U.C. has issued a very important kit to all trade union officials which explains in detail and without any misrepresentation precisely what the Bill is about. It is quite clear in that kit that the High Court judge who will preside will have assessors with him on the panel. It is not right for the hon. Member for Peterborough (Sir Harmar Nicholls) to make statements of

that kind, because it is not misrepresentation.

Mr. David Stoddart: The hon. Member for Peterborough said that the trade union leaders were misrepresenting the situation by saying that a High Court judge would preside over the Industrial Relations Court, but surely within the terms of the Bill that is correct.

8.0 p.m.

Mr. Heffer: There will be a High Court judge, but the hon. Member for Peterborough was attacking the officials for not saying that there would also be two assessors. The fact is that the major decision or advice will come from a High Court judge, and anyone with experience of the law knows that.
I did not want to mention Fords, but the issue has been raised. Hon. Members ought not to introduce extraneous matters, but now that the issue has been raised, I must say that there is a contrary point of view. No one will deny that Fords have a good industrial relations setup. Hon. Members may say that there are so many strikes a year, but all industrial relations experts will agree that the set-up there is extremely good. The problem with Fords is that they were affected by the Pilkington dispute in particular. That may be said to prove the whole case, but in fact Pilkingtons have had one strike in about 40 years.
Fords' decision was taken long before this dispute. It was probably made public now because of the dispute, and to give the impression that it was the result of the strike. It was probably part of the campaign against the present strike which in my opinion is perfectly legitimate and justified.

Mr. James A. Dunn: My hon. Friend may recall that we have sufficient evidence from Halewood to show that work on engine parts and construction was being transferred to Germany and we were afraid that this decision would be taken.

Mr. Heffer: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. He and I were on deputations to Ministers in the Labour Government on this subject of work being transferred from Halewood to German factories. Shop stewards came


to the House to lobby their local Members, shop stewards not only from Halewood, but other parts of Fords' set-up. It is important to get this decision into perspective.

Captain Walter Elliot: rose—

Mr. Heffer: I will not give way. I am constantly doing so. I think that I give way too much and I do not have a chance to make a speech without being interrupted. Interruptions hold up busines

Division No. 188.]
AYES
[8.04 p.m.


Albu, Austen
Eadie, Alex
Lamond, James


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Edelman, Maurice
Latham, Arthur


Allen, Scholefield
Edwards, Robert (Bilston)
Lawson, George


Archer, Peter (Rowley Regis)
Edwards, William (Merioneth)
Leadbitter, Ted


Armstrong, Ernest
Ellis, Tom
Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick


Ashley, Jack
English, Michael
Leonard, Dick


Ashton, Joe
Evans, Fred
Lestor, Miss Joan


Atkinson, Norman
Fernyhough, Rt. Hn. E.
Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham, N.)


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Fisher, Mrs.Doris(B'ham,Ladywood)
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)


Barnett, Joel
Fitch, Alan (Wigan)'
Lipton, Marcus


Beaney, Alan
Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Lomas, Kenneth


Bennett, James (Glasgow, Bridgeton)
Foley, Maurice
Loughlin, Charles


Bidwell, Sydney
Foot, Michael
Lyon, Alexander W. (York)


Bishop, E. S.
Ford, Ben
Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Forrester, John
Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson


Boardman, H. (Leigh)
Fraser, John (Norwood)
McBride, Neil


Booth, Albert
Freeson, Reginald
McCartney, Hugh


Bradley Tom
Galpern, Sir Myer
McGuire, Michael


Brown, Bob (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne,W.)
Gilbert, Dr. John
Mackenzie, Gregor


Brown, Hugh D. (G'gow, Provan)
Ginsburg, David
Mackie, John


Brown,Ronald (Shoreditch &amp; F'bury)
Golding, John
Mackintosh, John P.


Buchan, Norman
Gourlay, Harry
Maclennan, Robert


Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)
Grant, George (Morpeth)
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)


Callaghan, Rt. Hn. James
Grant, John D. (Islington, E.)
McNamara, J. Kevin


Campbell, I. (Dunbartonshire, W.)
Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside)
MacPherson, Malcolm


Cant, R. B.
Griffiths, Will (Exchange)
Mahon, Simon (Bootle)


Carmichael, Neil
Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
Mallalieu,J. P. W. (Huddersfield, E)


Carter, Ray (Birmingh'm, Northfield)
Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)
Marks, Kenneth


Carter-Jones, Lewis (Eccles)
Hannan, William (G'gow, Maryhill)
Marquand, David


Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara
Hardy, Peter
Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy


Clark, David (Colne Valley)
Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
Mayhew, Christopher


Cocks, Michael (Bristol, S.)
Hart, Rt. Hn. Judith
Meacher, Michael


Cohen, Stanley
Hattersley, Roy
Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert


Coleman, Donald
Heffer, Eric S.
Mendelson, John


Concannon, J. D.
Hilton, W. S.
Mikardo, Ian


Conlan, Bernard
Horam, John
Millan, Bruce


Corbet, Mrs. Freda
Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Miller, Dr. M. S.


Cox, Thomas (Wandsworth, C.)
Howell, Denis (Small Heath)
Milne, Edward (Blyth)


Crawshaw, Richard
Huckfield, Leslie
Molloy, William


Crosland, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey)
Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)


Crossman, Rt. Hn. Richard
Hughes, Mark (Durham)
Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)


Cunningham, G. (Islington, S.W.)
Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)


Dalyell, Tam
Hunter, Adam
Morris, Rt. Hn. John (Aberavon)


Darling, Rt. Hn. George
Irvine,Rt.Hn.SirArthur(Edge Hill)
Moyle, Roland


Davidson, Arthur
Janner, Greville
Mulley, Rt. Hn. Frederick


Davies, Denzil (Llanelly)
Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Murray, Ronald King


Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)
Jeger, Mrs.Lena(H'b'n&amp;St.P'cras,S)
Ogden, Eric


Davies, S. O. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)
O'Halloran, Michael


Davis, Clinton (Hackney, C.)
John, Brynmor
O'Malley, Brian


Deakins, Eric
Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)
Orme, Bert


Delargy, H. J.
Johnson, James (K'ston-on-Hull, W.)
Orme, Stanley


Dell, Rt. Hn. Edmund
Johnson, Walter (Derby, S.)
Oswald, Thomas


Dempsey, James
Jones, Barry (Flint, E.)
Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, Sutton)


Doig, Peter
Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Paget, R. T.


Dormand, J. D.
Jones, Gwynoro (Carmarthen)
Palmer, Arthur


Douglas Dick (Stirlingshire, E.)
Judd, Frank
Parker, John (Dagenham)


Douglas-Mann, Bruce
Kaufman, Gerald
Parry, Robert (Liverpool, Exchange)


Driberg, Tom
Kelley, Richard
Pavitt, Laurie


Duffy, A. E. P.
Kerr, Russell
Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred


Dunn, James A.
Kinnock Neil
Pendry, Tom


Dunnett, Jack
Lamble, David
Pentland, Norman

and we are operating under a guillotine and there are many more important Amendments.

The case for the Amendment has been adequately made by my hon. Friend the Member for Swindon (Mr. David Stoddart) and I hope that the Committee will support it.

Question put, That the Amendment be made:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 250, Noes 283.

Perry, Ernest G.
Sillars, James
Urwin, T. W.


Prentice, Rt. Hn. Reg.
Silverman, Julius
Varley, Eric G.


Prescott, John
Skinner, Dennis
Wainwright, Edwin


Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)
Small, William
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


Probert, Arthur
Smith, John (Larnarkshire, N.)
Wallace, George


Rankin, John
Spearing, Nigel
Watkins, David


Reed, D. (Sedgefield)
Spriggs, Leslie
Weitzman, David


Rees, Merlyn (Leeds, S.)
Stallard, A. W.
Wellbeloved, James


Rhodes, Geoffrey
Stewart, Donald (Western Isles)
Wells, William (Walsall, N.)


Richard, Ivor
Stewart, Rt. Hn. Michael (Fulham)
White, James (Glasgow, Pollok)


Roberts, Albert (Normanton)
Stoddart, David (Swindon)
Whitehead, Philip


Roberts,Rt.Hn.Goronwy(Caernarvon)
Stonehouse, Rt. Hn. John
Whitlock, William


Robertson, John (Paisley)
Strang, Gavin
Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick


Roderick, Caerwyn E.(Br'c'n&amp;R'dnor)
Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R.
Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)


Rodgers, William (Stockton-on-Tees)
Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley
Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)


Roper, John
Swain, Thomas
Williams, W. T. (Warrington)


Rose, Paul B.
Taverne, Dick
Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)


Ross, Rt. Hn. William (Kilmarnock)
Thomas,Rt.Hn.George (Cardiff,W.)
Wilson, Rt. Hn. Harold (Huyton)


Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-under-Lyne)
Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)
Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)


Shore, Rt. Hn. Peter (Stepney)
Thomson, Rt. Hn. G. (Dundee, E.)



Short,Rt.Hn. Edward(N'c'tle-u-Tyne)
Tinn, James
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Short, Mrs. Renée (W'hampton,N.E.)
Tomney, Frank
Mr. William Hamling and


Silkin, Hn. S. C. (Dulwich)
Tuck, Raphael
Mr. Joseph Harper.




NOES


Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)
Crowder, F. P.
Hayhoe, Barney


Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)
Curran, Charles
Heseltine, Michael


Astor, John
Dalkeith, Earl of
Hicks, Robert


Atkins, Humphrey
Davies, Rt. Hn. John (Knutsford)
Higgins, Terence L.


Awdry, Daniel
d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry
Hiley, Joseph


Baker, Kenneth (St. Marylebone)
d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Maj.-Gen. Jack
Hill, John E. B. (Norfolk, S.)


Baker, W. H. K. (Banff)
Dean, Paul
Hill, James (Southampton, Test)


Balniel, Lord
Digby, Simon Wingfield
Holland, Philip


Barber, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Dixon, Piers
Holt, Miss Mary


Batsford, Brian
Dodds-Parker, Douglas
Hooson, Emlyn


Bell, Ronald
Drayson, G. B.
Hordern, Peter


Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torquay)
du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward
Hornby, Richard


Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gosport)
Dykes, Hugh
Hornsby-Smith,Rt.Hn.Dame Patricia


Benyon, W.
Eden, Sir John
Howe, Hn. Sir Geoffrey (Reigate)


Berry, Hn. Anthony
Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Howell, David


Biffen, John
Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)
Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, N.)


Biggs-Davison, John
Elliott, R. W. (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne,N.)
Hunt, John


Blaker, Peter
Emery, Peter
Hutchison, Michael Clark


Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S.W.)
Eyre, Reginald
Iremonger, T. L.


Body, Richard
Farr, John
James, David


Boscawen, Robert
Fell, Anthony
Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)


Bossom, Sir Clive
Fenner, Mrs. Peggy
Jessel, Toby


Bowden, Andrew
Finsberg, Geoffrey (Hampstead)
Johnson Smith, G. (E. Grinstead)


Braine, Bernard
Fisher, Nigel (Surbiton)
Jopling, Michael


Bray, Ronald
Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
Joseph, Rt. Hn. Sir Keith


Brewis, John
Fortescue, Tim
Kaberry, Sir Donald


Brocklebank-Fowler, Christopher
Fraser,Rt.Hn.Hugh(St'fford &amp; Stone)
Kellett, Mrs. Elaine


Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
Fry, Peter
Kershaw, Anthony


Bruce-Gardyne, J.
Galbraith, Hn. T. G.
Kilfedder, James


Bryan, Paul
Gardner, Edward
King, Eveleyn (Dorset, S.)


Buchanan-Smith,Alick(Angus,N &amp; M)
Gibson-Watt, David
King, Tom (Bridgwater)


Buck, Antony
Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)
Kinsey, J. R.


Bullus, Sir Eric
Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)
Kirk, Peter


Butler, Adam (Bosworth)
Glyn, Dr. Alan
Kitson, Timothy


Campbell,Rt.Hn.G.(Moray&amp;Nairn)
Goodhart, Philip
Knight, Mrs. Jill


Carlisle, Mark
Goodhew, Victor
Knox, David


Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert
Gorst, John
Lambton, Antony


Cary, Sir Robert
Gower, Raymond
Lane, David


Channon, Paul
Grant, Anthony (Harrow, C.)
Langford-Holt, Sir John


Chapman, Sydney
Gray, Hamish
Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry


Chataway, Rt. Hn. Christopher
Green, Alan
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)


Chichester-Clark, R.
Grieve, Percy
Lloyd,Rt.Hn.Geoffrey(Sut'nC'dfield)


Churchill, W. S.
Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)
Lloyd, Ian (P'tsm'th, Langstone)


Clark, William (Surrey, E.)
Grylls, Michael
Longden, Gilbert


Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Gummer, Selwyn
Loveridge, John


Clegg, Walter
Gurden, Harold
MacArthur, Ian


Cockeram, Eric
Hall, Miss Joan (Keighley)
McCrindle, R. A.


Cooke, Robert
Hall, John (Wycombe)
Maclean, Sir Fitzroy


Coombs, Derek
Hall-Davis, A. G. F.
McMaster, Stanley


Cooper, A. E.
Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
Macmillan, Maurice (Farnham)


Cordle, John
Hannam, John (Exeter)
McNair-Wilson, Michael


Corfield, Rt. Hn. Frederick
Harrison, Brian (Maldon)
McNair-Wilson, Patrick (New Forest)


Cormack, Patrick
Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere
Maddan, Martin


Costain, A. P.
Haselhurst, Alan
Maginnis, John E.


Critchley, Julian
Havers, Michael
Marten, Neil


Crouch, David
Hawkins, Paul
Mather, Carol



Hay, John
Maude, Angus







Maudling, Rt. Hn. Reginald
Proudfoot, Wilfred
Sutcliffe, John


Mawby, Ray
Pym, Rt. Hn. Francis
Tapsell, Peter


Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.
Quennell, Miss J. M.
Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)


Meyer, Sir Anthony
Raison, Timothy
Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)


Mills, Peter (Torrington)
Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James
Taylor, Robert (Croydon, N.W.)


Mills, Stratton (Belfast, N.)
Rawlinson, Rt. Hn. Sir Peter
Tebbit, Norman


Miscampbell, Norman
Redmond, Robert
Temple, John M.


Mitchell,Lt.-Col.C.(Aberdeenshire,W)
Reed, Laurance (Bolton, E.)
Thatcher, Rt. Hn. Mrs. Margaret


Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)
Rees, Peter (Dover)
Thomas, John Stradling (Monmouth)


Moate, Roger
Rees-Davies, W. R.
Thomas, Rt. Hn. Peter (Hendon, S.)


Molyneaux, James
Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David
Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon, S.)


Money, Ernie
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon
Trafford, Dr. Anthony


Monks, Mrs. Connie
Ridley, Hn. Nicholas
Trew, Peter


Montgomery, Fergus
Ridsdale, Julian
Tugendhat, Christopher


More, Jasper
Rippon, Rt. Hn. Geoffrey
Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H.


Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh)
Roberts, Michael (Cardiff, N.)
van Straubenzee, W. R.


Morgan-Giles, Rear-Adm.
Roberts, Wyn (Conway)
Vickers, Dame Joan


Mudd, David
Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)
Waddington, David


Murton, Oscar
Rost, Peter
Walder, David (Clitheroe)


Nabarro, Sir Gerald
Royle, Anthony
Walker, Rt. Hn. Peter (Worcester)


Neave, Airey
Russell, Sir Ronald
Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek


Nicholl, Sir Harmar
Scott, Nicholas
Wall, Patrick


Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael
Scott-Hopkins, James
Walters, Dennis


Normanton, Tom
Sharples, Richard
Ward, Dame Irene


Nott, John
Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh &amp; Whitby)
Warren, Kenneth


Oppenheim, Mrs. Sally
Shelton, William (Clapham)
Weatherill, Bernard


Orr, Capt. L. P. S.
Simeons, Charles
Wells, John (Maidstone)


Osborn, John
Skeet, T. H. H.
White, Roger (Gravesend)


Owen, Idris (Stockport, N.)
Smith, Dudley (W'wick&amp;L'mington)
Wiggin, Jerry


Page, Graham (Crosby)
Soref, Harold
Wilkinson, John


Page, John (Harrow, W.)
Spence, John
Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick


Parkinson, Cecil (Enfield, W.)
Sproat, Iain
Woodhouse, Hn. Christopher


Percival, Ian
Stainton, Keith
Worsley, Marcus


Pike, Miss Mervyn
Stanbrook, Ivor
Wylie, Rt. Hn. N. R.


Pink, R. Bonner
Stewart-Smith, D. G. (Belper)
Younger, Hn. George


Pounder, Rafton
Stodart, Anthony (Edinburgh, W,)



Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch
Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Price, David (Eastleigh)
Stokes, John
Mr. Hugh Rossi and


Prior, Rt. Hn. J. M. L.
Stuttaford, Dr. Tom
Mr. Keith Speed.

Question put, That the Clause stand part of the Bill:—

Division No. 189.]
AYES
[8.14 p.m.


Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)
Cary, Sir Robert
Eyre, Reginald


Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)
Channon, Paul
Farr, John


Astor, John
Chapman, Sydney
Fell, Anthony


Atkins, Humphrey
Chataway, Rt. Hn. Christopher
Fenner, Mrs. Peggy


Awdry, Daniel
Chichester-Clark, R.
Finsberg, Geoffrey (Hampstead)


Baker, Kenneth (St. Marylebone)
Churchill, W. S.
Fisher, Nigel (Surbiton)


Baker, W. H. K. (Banff)
Clark, William (Surrey, E.)
Fortescue, Tim


Balniel, Lord
Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Fraser,Rt.Hn.Hugh(St'fford &amp; Stone)


Barber, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Clegg, Walter
Fry, Peter


Batsford, Brian
Cockeram, Eric
Galbraith, Hn. T. G.


Bell, Ronald
Cooke, Robert
Gardner, Edward


Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torquay)
Coombs, Derek
Gibson-Watt, David


Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gosport)
Cooper, A. E.
Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)


Benyon, W.
Cordle, John
Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)


Berry, Hn. Anthony
Gorfield, Rt. Hn. Frederick
Glyn, Dr. Alan


Biffen, John
Cormack, Patrick
Godber, Rt. Hn, J. B.


Biggs-Davison, John
Costain, A. P.
Goodhart, Philip


Blaker, Peter
Critchley, Julian
Goodhew, Victor


Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S.W.)
Crouch, David
Gorst, John


Body, Richard
Crowder, F. P.
Gower, Raymond


Boscawen, Robert
Curran, Charles
Grant, Anthony (Harrow, C.)


Bossom, Sir Clive
Dalkeith, Earl of
Gray, Hamish


Bowden, Andrew
Davies, Rt. Hn. John (Knnteford)
Green, Alan


Braine, Bernard
d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry
Grieve, Percy


Bray, Ronald
d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Maj.-Gen. Jack
Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)


Brewis, John
Dean, Paul
Grylls, Michael


Brocklebank-Fowler, Christopher
Digby, Simon Wingfield
Gummer, Selwyn


Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
Dixon, Piers
Gurden, Harold


Bruce-Gardyne, J.
Dodds-Parker, Douglas
Hall, Miss Joan (Keighley)


Bryan, Paul
Drayson, G. B.
Hall, John (Wycombe)


Buchanan-Smith, Alick(Angus,N&amp;M)
du Cann. Rt. Hn. Edward
Hall-Davis, A. G. F.


Buck, Antony
Dykes, Hugh
Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)


Bullus, Sir Eric
Eden, Sir John
Hannam, John (Exeter)


Butler, Adam (Bosworth)
Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Harrison, Brian (Maldon)


Campbell,Rt. Hn.G.(Moray&amp;Nairn)
Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)
Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere


Carlisle, Mark
Elliott, R. W. (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne,N.)
Haselhurst, Alan


Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert
Emery, Peter
Havers, Michael

The Committee divided: Ayes 282, Noes 247.

Hawkins, Paul
Maude, Argus
Royle, Anthony


Hay, John
Maudling, Rt. Hn. Reginald
Russell, Sir Ronald


Hayhoe, Barney
Mawby, Ray
Scott, Nicholas


Heseltine, Michael
Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.
Scott-Hopkins, James


Hicks, Robert
Meyer, Sir Anthony
Sharpies, Richard


Higgins, Terence L.
Mills, Peter (Torrington)
Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh &amp; Whitby)


Hiley, Joseph
Mills, Stratton (Belfast, N.)
Shelton, William (Clapham)


Hill, John E. B. (Norfolk, S.)
Miscampbell, Norman
Simeons, Charles


Hill, James (Southampton, Test)
Mitchell,Lt.-Col.C.(Aberdeenshire,W)
Skeet, T. H. H.


Holland, Philip
Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)
Smith, Dudley (W'wick &amp; L'mington)


Holt, Miss Mary
Moate, Roger
Soref, Harold


Hooson, Emlyn
Molyneaux, James
Spence, John


Hordern, Peter
Money, Ernie
Sproat, Iain


Hornby, Richard
Monks, Mrs. Connie
Stainton, Keith


Hornsby-Smith,Rt.Hn.Dame Patricia
Montgomery, Fergus
Stanbrook, Ivor


Howe, Hn. Sir Geoffrey (Reigate)
More, Jasper
Stewart-Smith, D. G. (Belper)


Howell, David (Guildford)
Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh)
Stodart, Anthony (Edinburgh, W.)


Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, N.)
Morgan-Giles, Rear-Adm.
Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M.


Hunt, John
Mudd, David
Stokes, John


Hutchison, Michael Clark
Murton, Oscar
Stuttaford, Dr. Tom


Iremonger, T. L.
Nabarro, Sir Gerald
Sutcliffe, John


James, David
Neave, Airey
Tapsell, Peter


Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)
Nicholls, Sir Harmar
Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)


Jessel, Toby
Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael
Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)


Johnson Smith, G. (E. Grinstead)
Nott, John
Taylor, Robert (Croydon, N.W.)


Jopling, Michael
Onslow, Cranley
Tebbit, Norman


Joseph, Rt. Hn. Sir Keith
Oppenhelm, Mrs. Sally
Temple, John M.


Kaberry, Sir Donald
Orr, Capt, L. P. S.
Thatcher, Rt. Hn. Mrs. Margaret


Kellett, Mrs. Elaine
Osborn, John
Thomas, John Stradling (Monmouth)


Kershaw, Anthony
Owen, Idris (Stockport, N.)
Thomas, Rt. Hn. Peter (Hendon, S.)


Kilfedder, James
Page, Graham (Crosby)
Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon, S.)


King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)
Page, John (Harrow, W.)
Trafford, Dr. Anthony


King, Tom (Bridgwater)
Parkinson, Cecil (Enfield, W.)
Trew, Peter


Kinsey, J. R.
Percival, Ian
Tugendhat, Christopher


Kirk, Peter
Pike, Miss Mervyn
Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H.


Kitson, Timothy
Pink, R. Bonner
van Straubenzee, W. R.


Knight, Mrs. Jill
Pounder, Rafton
Vickers, Dame Joan


Knox, David
Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch
Waddington, David


Lambton, Antony
Prior, Rt. Hn. J. M. L.
Walder, David (Clitheroe)


Lane, David
Proudfoot, Wilfred
Walker, Rt. Hn. Peter (Worcester)


Langford-Holt, Sir John
Pym, Rt. Hn. Francis
Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek


Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry
Quennell, Miss J. M.
Walters, Dennis


Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Raison, Timothy
Ward, Dame Irene


Lloyd,Rt.Hn.Geoffrey (Sut'nC'dfield)
Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James
Warren, Kenneth


Lloyd, Ian (P'tsm'th, Langstone)
Rawlinon, Rt. Hn. Sir Peter
Weatherill, Bernard


Longden, Gilbert
Redmond, Robert
Wells, John (Maidstone)


Loveridge, John
Reed, Laurance (Bolton, E.)
White, Roger (Gravesend)


MacArthur, Ian
Rees, Peter (Dover)
Wiggin, Jerry


McCrindle, R. A.
Rees-Davies, W. R.
Wilkinson, John


Maclean, Sir Fitzroy
Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David
Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick


McMaster, Stanley
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon
Woodhouse, Hn, Christopher


Macmillan, Maurice (Farnham)
Ridley, Hn. Nicholas
Worsley, Marcus


McNair-Wilson, Michael
Ridsdale, Julian
Wylie, Rt. Hn. N. R.


McNair-Wilson, Patrick (NewForest)
Rippon, Rt. Hn. Geoffrey
Younger, Hn. George


Maddan, Martin
Roberts, Michael (Cardiff, N.)



Maginnis, John E.
Roberts, Wyn (Conway)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Marten, Neil
Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)
Mr. Keith Speed and


Mather, Carol
Rost, Peter
Mr. Hugh Rossi.




NOES


Albu, Austen
Callaghan, Rt. Hn. James
Davies, Denzil (Llanelly)


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Campbell, I. (Dunbartonshire, W.)
Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)


Allen, Scholefield
Cant, R. B.
Davies, S. O. (Merthyr Tydvil)


Archer, Peter (Rowley Regis)
Carmichael, Neil
Davis, Clinton (Hackney, C.)


Armstrong, Ernest
Carter, Ray (Birmingh'm, Northfield)
Deakins, Eric


Ashley, Jack
Carter-Jones, Lewis (Eccles)
Delargy, H. J.


Ashton, Joe
Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara
Dell, Rt. Hn. Edmund


Atkinson, Norman
Clark, David (Colne Valley)
Dempsey, James


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Cocks, Michael (Bristol, S.)
Doig, Peter


Barnett, Joel
Cohen, Stanley
Dormand, J. D.


Bennett, James (Glasgow, Bridgeton)
Coleman, Donald
Douglas, Dick (Strlingshire, E.)


Bidwell, Sydney
Concannon, J. D.
Douglas-Mann, Bruce


Bishop, E. S.
Conlan, Bernard
Driberg, Tom


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Corbet, Mrs. Freda
Duffy, A. E. P.


Boardman, H. (Leigh)
Cox, Thomas (Wandsworth, C.)
Dunn, James A.


Booth, Albert
Crawshaw, Richard
Dunett, Jack


Bradley, Tom
Cronin, John
Eadie, Alex


Brown, Bob (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne,W.)
Crosland, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Edwards, Robert (Bilston)


Brown, Hugh D. (G'gow, Provan)
Crossman, Rt. Hn. Richard
Edwards, William (Merioneth)


Brown, Ronald (Shoreditch &amp; F'bury)
Cunningham, G. (Islington, S.W.)
Ellis, Tom


Buchan, Norman
Dalyell, Tam
English, Michael


Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)
Davidson, Arthur
Evans, Fred







Fernyhough, Rt. Hn. E.
Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham, N.)
Rhodes, Geoffrey


Fisher, Mrs. Doris(B'ham,Ladywood)
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Richard, Ivor


Fitch, Alan (Wigan)
Lipton, Marcus
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)


Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Lomas, Kenneth
Roberts,Rt.Hn.Goronwy(Caernarvon)


Foley, Maurice
Loughlin, Charles
Robertson, John (Paisley)


Foot, Michael
Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)
Roderick, Caerwyn E.(Br'c'n&amp;R'dnor)


Ford, Ben
Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson
Rodgers, William (Stockton-on-Tees)


Forrester, John
McBride, Neil
Roper, John


Fraser, John (Norwood)
McCartney, Hugh
Rose, Paul B.


Freeson, Reginald
McElhone, Frank
Ross, Rt. Hn. William (Kilmarnock)


Galpern, Sir Myer
McGuire, Michael
Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-under-Lyne)


Gilbert, Dr. John
Mackenzie, Gregor
Short, Rt. Hn. Peter (Stepney)


Ginsburg, David
Mackie, John
Short,Rt.Hn.Edward(N'c'tle-u-Tyne)


Golding, John
Mackintosh, John P.
Short, Mrs. Renée(W'hampton,N.E.)


Gourlay, Harry
Maclennan, Robert
Silkin, Hn. S. C. (Dulwich)


Grant, George (Morpeth)
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)
Sillars, James


Grant, John D. (Islington, E.)
McNamara, J. Kevin
Silverman, Julius


Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside)
MacPherson, Malcolm
Skinner, Dennis


Griffiths, Will (Exchange)
Mahon, Simon (Bootle)
Small, William


Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield, E.)
Smith, John (Lanarkshire, N.)


Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)
Marks, Kenneth
Spearing, Nigel


Hannan, William (G'gow, Maryhill)
Marquand, David
Spriggs, Leslie


Hardy, Peter
Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy
Stallard, A. W.


Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
Meacher, Michael
Stewart, Donald (Western Isles)


Hart, Rt. Hn. Judith
Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert
Stewart, Rt. Hn. Michael (Fulham)


Hattersley, Roy
Mendelson, John
Stoddart, David (Swindon)


Heffer, Eric S.
Mikardo, Ian
Stonehouse, Rt. Hn. John


Hilton, W. S.
Millan, Bruce
Strang, Gavin


Horam, John
Miller, Dr. M. S.
Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R.


Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Milne, Edward (Blyth)
Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley


Howell, Denis (Small Heath)
Molloy, William
Swain, Thomas


Huckfield, Leslie
Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)
Taverne, Dick


Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey)
Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)
Thomas,Rt.Hn.George (Cardiff,W.)


Hughes, Mark (Durham)
Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)
Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)


Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Morris, Rt. Hn, John (Aberavon)
Thomson, Rt. Hn. G. (Dundee, E.)


Hunter, Adam
Moyle, Roland
Tinn, James


Irvine,Rt.Hn.SirArthur (Edge Hill)
Mulley, Rt. Hn. Frederick
Tomney, Frank


Janner, Greville
Murray, Ronald King
Tuck, Raphael


Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Ogden, Eric
Urwin, T. W.


Jeger,Mrs.Lena(H'b'n&amp;St.P'cras,s.)
O'Halloran, Michael
Varley, Eric G.


Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)
O'Malley, Brian
Wainwright, Edwin


John, Brynmor
Oram, Bert
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)
Orme, Stanley
Wallace, George


Johnson, James (K'ston-on-Hull, W.)
Oswald, Thomas
Watkins, David


Johnson, Walter (Derby, S.)
Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, Sutton)
Weitzman, David


Jones, Barry (Flint, E.)
Paget, R. T.
Wellbeloved, James


Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Palmer, Arthur
Wells, William (Walsall, N.)


Jones,Rt.Hn.Sir Elwyn(W.Ham,S.)
Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles
White, James (Glasgow, Pollok)


Jones, Gwynoro (Carmarthen)
Parker, John (Dagenham)
Whitehead, Phillip


Judd, Frank
Parry, Robert (Liverpool, Exchange)
Whitlock, William


Kaufman, Gerald
Pavitt, Laurie
Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick


Kelley, Richard
Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred
Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)


Kerr, Russell
Pendry, Tom
Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)


Kinnock, Neil
Pentland, Norman
Williams, W. T. (Warrington)


Lambie, David
Perry, Ernest G.
Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)


Lamond, James
Prentice, Rt. Hn. Reg.
Wilson, Rt. Hn. Harold (Huyton)


Latham, Arthur
Prescott, John
Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)


Lawson, George
Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)



Leadbitter, Ted
Probert, Arthur
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick
Rankin, John
Mr. William Hamling and


Leonard, Dick
Reed, D. (Sedgefield)
Mr. Joseph Harper.


Lester, Miss Joan
Rees, Merlyn (Leeds, S.)

Clause 115 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 116

UNFAIR INDUSTRIAL PRACTICE IN BREACH OF CONTRACT OF EMPLOYMENT

Question proposed, That the Clause stand part of the Bill.

Mr. Murray: This is an enabling Clause dealing with the power of the Supreme Court of England to make rules to cover cases where actions of

damages are pending and to enable such actions to be assessed in the ordinary courts while procedure is taking place under the Bill in industrial tribunals. Similar procedures are provided for the Court of Session in Scotland. As I have been asked by at least one of my hon. Friends what an "Act of Sederunt" in subsection (2) means, I hasten to say that these formidable words merely refer to the power to make similar rules in the Scottish Supreme Court.
The importance of this Clause is that it provides us for the first time with the


opportunity of considering the part which industrial tribunals are to play under the Bill. Because of the guillotine, we have had no opportunity to discuss any Clause or part of a Clause under Part VI of the Bill.
The industrial tribunals were set up under the Industrial Training Act, 1964, to determine appeals by persons assessed to training levies which were imposed under that Act. Their functions have been extended several times by subsequent Acts. The Redundancy Payments Act, 1965, deals with the problems of entitlement to redundancy which arise when there is a stoppage of work after an employer has given notice to an employee of termination of employment. That is dealt with in Section 40. Section 42 deals with the question of the right to or amount of redundancy payments in the case of certain public employees who, because of the nature of their employment, are not entitled to redundancy payments but are given certain payments as if they are entitled. Disputes under these provisions are sent to the industrial tribunals.
The Redundancy Payments Act. 1965, extended the jurisdiction of industrial tribunals to deal with cases in which employers failed to provide a written statement of terms of employment under the Contracts of Employment Act, 1963. An employee was given the right to apply to an industrial tribunal to determine what terms should be included if the employer did not comply with his obligation under Section 4 of that Act as amended.
By the Docks and Harbours Act, 1966, industrial tribunals were empowered to determine disputes about the meaning of dock work. Under the Selective Employment Payments Act, 1966, they were given jurisdiction to decide whether a business or part of a business was an establishment within the meaning of the Act, so attracting selective employment payments, and to adjudicate on the amount of any such payment under the Act.
Those are the limits of the functions which industrial tribunals exercise, although they will exercise further functions under the Equal Pay Act, 1970.
It is important for the Committee to note that the rôle of industrial tribunals

in all cases is essentially one of industrial arbitration on an individual employee's rights or an individual employer's rights.
In giving the industrial tribunals these jurisdictions, the legislature did not entrench in any way on industrial disputes. It did not give to the industrial tribunals any jurisdiction on industrial disputes in the sense in which the Bill deals with them. Nor did it encroach in any way on the ordinary functions of the courts in law. This is changed by the Bill. It would be fair to say that industrial tribunals under the Bill are made into mini-courts on the model of the National Industrial Relations Court. This is done by Clause 89 and Schedule 5, neither of which we have been given an opportunity to discuss. A blank cheque is given in Schedule 5 to the Secretary of State to determine by regulations the precise jurisdiction that these tribunals shall have, and also to make the Secretary of State, if he so chooses, a party to any proceedings, although—to use the language of the Bill—he is on the face of it an extraneous party. This is an important result, and it is deplorable that we have not had an opportunity to discuss the important principle which lies in this transmutation of industrial tribunals from arbitral bodies into mini-courts.
8.30 p.m.
The Bill gives industrial tribunals extensive powers. This was referred to in the last debate when the question of legal aid in regard to these tribunals was mentioned. It was noted by the Committee at that point that by Clause 99 the Bill provides for the conferring of jurisdiction for breach of contract on these tribunals. That conferring of jurisdiction has not yet been made. It is merely, as the Solicitor-General pointed out, put in as an enabling power. But when one looks at the rubric to Clause 116, which reads
Unfair industrial practice in breach of contract of employment
one cannot doubt that this will be associated with an exercise of the enabling power under Clause 99, and that in the not so distant future industrial tribunals, in addition to the functions which I shall mention in a moment, will deal with actions of damages for breach of contract of employment.


Apart from that enabling provision, the Bill gives to the industrial tribunals power to award compensation under Clause 97(2)(b). It has power to deal with complaints by employees of unfair industrial practices in breach of workers' rights under Clause 5, which, as we have already seen, is very extensive and far-reaching. Industrial tribunals are also given power to deal with unfair dismissal under Clause 20, and that is dealt with in Clause 94. They are also given powers to deal with complaints against employees' or workers' organisations on the grounds of breach of the guiding principles for workers' organisations in regard to membership and participation in activities. That jurisdiction, together with jurisdiction for corresponding breaches in regard to employers' organisations, is given to industrial tribunals under Clause 95. These breaches are far-reaching in their effect, and industrial tribunals are being given considerable jurisdiction, analogous to that of the National Industrial Relations Court.
Under Clause 96 industrial tribunals are given a similar jurisdiction in regard to complaints by the registrar. Once again it is important to stress that the registrar, who is to play an important role under the Bill, will have power to bring complaints to the industrial tribunal, just as he has power to originate complaints to the National Industrial Relations Court.
Industrial tribunals are constituted at present under Statutory Instrument—this can be changed, I presume, by Statutory Instrument—and they consist of a legally qualified chairman and two members—one employers' representative and one workers' representative. When considering the albeit limited jurisdiction which is given to industrial tribunals, we must remember that the Bill gives them legal functions which, by adding a crushing burden of legalism, will have the effect of squeezing out all hope of moderation and the climate of arbitration in which industrial relations can prosper. That is what worries me about this provision. We have said repeatedly that the trouble with the National Industrial Relations Court is that it is trying to introduce the heavy hand of the law where a more delicate touch would be appropriate. The same can be said of the industrial tribunals, moderated only by the fact that

industrial tribunals have been given a lesser rôle to play.
I conclude by stressing that by giving legal functions to essentially arbitral tribunals one is placing upon a committee of three—one legally qualified chairman, one employers' representative and one workers' representative—an enormous burden of legal interpretation and legal application of the law to industrial problems. This is in complete
contrast to the functions which industrial tribunals were set up to carry out. They were essentially appointed to deal with disputes of fact of a comparatively minor nature arising in a comparatively non-controversial sphere of industry. This is being changed, and they are being given a controversial rôle, and I regard this as a thoroughly retrograde step.

The Solicitor-General: The hon. and learned Member for Edinburgh, Leith (Mr. Murray) suggests that the nature of the tribunals is being transformed. That is not a fair presentation of the rôle of the tribunals under the Bill.
The essence of the tribunals, as they have grown up over the years, is that they exercise judicial rights and decide legal disputes as to right. They cannot be compared with the Industrial Court, which does straight arbitration as between two claims, because they handle a large number of cases under the Redundancy Payments Act involving the determination of questions of fact and of right. They handle a much smaller number of cases, under the jurisdiction transferred to them from the pension appeals tribunals as well as under a number of other statutes mentioned by the hon. and learned Gentleman, not many under each but all involving the application of detailed law to the facts of different situations. They are distinguished by the fact that they are dealing with claims by individuals against their employers, leaving on one side the industrial training levy cases and selective employment premium cases.
When one mentions these in the same breath, it is plain that these tribunals have become sophisticated bodies dealing with a wide range of subjects but principally dealing with claims of right affecting individuals. This is the role they will continue under the provisions of the Bill.


They are to have transferred to them what will be the largest part of their new jurisdiction —namely, questions of unfair dismissal—as was to have been the case under the Labour Government's Bill. This major addition to their rôle will involve cases of the same quality as redundancy payments cases; individual claims raising individual questions against organisations. The new matter that is being transferred to them beyond what was to have been transferred by the former Government's Bill is in regard to cases in which the right to belong or not to belong to a trade union or workers' organisation is in question. Again, those are cases involving individual claims against an organisation comparable in quality and nature to claims that an individual would make against his employer.
In the Government's view, this is not a transformation in any dramatic sense of the kind of work the tribunal will have to do. The additional matter that is being transferred to the tribunals which is the subject of Clause 116 is dependent on the exercise of the powers under Clause 99 to transfer actions for breach of contract to the tribunals. That is a reproduction of Clause 79 or possibly Clause 80 of the Labour Government's Bill, which has also a prospective power was recommended by Donovan to give these more local, more informal and more industrially sophisticated three-man tribunals responsibility for deciding cheaply and informally questions which might never be decided at all; namely, as to holiday entitlement, as to the way

Division No. 190.]
AYES
[8.40 p.m.


Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)
Braine, Bernard
Cockeram, Eric


Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)
Bray, Ronald
Cooke, Robert


Astor, John
Brewis, John
Coombs, Derek


Atkins, Humphrey
Brocklebank-Fowler, Christopher
Cooper, A. E.


Awdry, Daniel
Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
Cordle, John


Baker, W. H. K. (Banff)
Bruce-Gardyne, J.
Corfield, Rt. Hn. Frederick


Balniel, Lord
Bryan, Paul
Cormack, Patrick


Barber, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Buchanan-Smith, Alick(Angus,N&amp;M)
Costain, A. P.


Batsford, Brian
Buck, Antony
Critchley, Julian


Bell, Ronald
Bullus, Sir Eric
Crouch, David


Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torquay)
Butler, Adam (Bosworth)
Crowder, F. P.


Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gosport)
Campbell, Rt.Hn.G.(Moray&amp;Nairn)
Curran, Charles


Benyon, W.
Carlisle, Mark
Dalkeith, Earl of


Berry, Hn. Anthony
Cary, Sir Robert
Davies, Rt. Hn. John (Knutsford)


Biffen, John
Channon, Paul
d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry


Biggs-Davison, John
Chapman, Sydney
d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Maj.-Gen. Jack


Blaker, Peter
Chataway, Rt. Hn. Christopher
Dean, Paul


Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S.W.)
Chichester-Clark, R.
Digby, Simon Wingfield


Body, Richard
Churchill, W. S.
Dixon, Piers


Boscawen, Robert
Clark, William (Surrey, E.)
Dodds-Parker, Douglas


Bossom, Sir Clive
Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Drayson, G. B.


Bowden, Andrew
Clegg, Walter
du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward

in which employers fulfil the terms of contracts of employment, and so on. It is right in our view, as in the view of the Labour Government, that power should be taken to transfer those cases to tribunals although the power will not be exercised immediately.

Clause 116 is the corresponding Clause to Clause 81 of the Labour Government's Bill, enabling the court to make rules as to how these matters should be handled once this jurisdiction is given to the tribunals. The Clause bites on only a small area of jurisdiction. It is only those cases which involve breaches of contract in respect of which jurisdiction has been transferred when the order has been made to industrial tribunals which are effected by this Clause. Whether it be by rule of court or act of sederunt, these consequential changes will be made to allow the tribunals to go on handling, with the expertise that they have built up in their eight years of existence, this kind of case affecting individual claims on individual rights, whether against an employer or against organisations of workers.

It is for that reason that I invite the Committee to allow this Clause to stand part of the Bill. It is an essential part of the machinery for bringing speedy and informal justice for individuals into these informal tribunals.

Question put, That the Clause stand part of the Bill:—

The Committee divided: Ayes, 278, Noes 247.

Dykes, Hugh
Kershaw, Anthony
Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James


Eden, Sir John
Kilfedder, James
Rawlinson, Rt. Hn. Sir Peter


Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)
King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)
Redmond, Robert


Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)
King, Tom (Bridgwater)
Reed, Laurance (Bolton, E.)


Elliott, R. W. (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne,N.)
Kinsey, J. R.
Rees, Peter (Dover)


Emery, Peter
Kirk, Peter
Rees-Davies, W. R.


Eyre, Reginald
Kitson, Timothy
Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David


Farr, John
Knox, David
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon


Fell, Anthony
Lambton, Antony
Ridley, Hn. Nicholas


Fenner, Mrs. Peggy
Lane, David
Ridsdale, Julian


Finsberg, Geoffrey (Hampstead)
Langford-Holt, Sir John
Rippon, Rt. Hn. Geoffrey


Fisher, Nigel (Surbiton)
Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry
Roberts, Michael (Cardiff, N.)


Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Roberts, Wyn (Conway)


Fookes, Miss Janet
Lloyd,Rt.Hn.Georey(Sut'nC'dfield)
Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)


Fraser,Rt.Hn.Hugh(St'fford &amp; Stone)
Lloyd, Ian (P'tsm'th, Langstone)
Rost, Peter


Fry, Peter
Longden, Gilbert
Royle, Anthony


Galbraith, Hn. T. G.
Loveridge, John
Russell, Sir Ronald


Gardner, Edward
MacArthur, Ian
Scott-Hopkins, James


Gibson-Watt, David
McCrindle, R. A.
Sharpies, Richard


Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)
McLaren, Martin
Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh &amp; Whitby)


Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)
Maclean, Sir Fitzroy
Shelton, William (Clapham)


Glyn, Dr. Alan
McMaster, Stanley
Simeon, Charles


Godber, Rt. Hn. J. B.
Macmillan, Maurice (Farnham)
Skeet, T. H. H.


Goodhart, Philip
McNair-Wilson, Michael
Smith, Dudley (W'wick &amp; L'mington)


Goodhew, Victor
McNair-Wilson, Patrick (NewForest)
Soref, Harold


Gorst, John
Maddan, Martin
Speed, Keith


Gower, Raymond
Maginnis, John E.
Spence, John


Grant, Anthony (Harrow, C.)
Marten, Neil
Sproat, Iain


Gray, Hamish
Maude, Angus
Stainton, Keith


Green, Alan
Maudling, Rt. Hn. Reginald
Stanbrook, Ivor


Grieve, Percy
Mawby, Ray
Stewart-Smith, D. G. (Belper)


Grimond, Rt. Hn. J.
Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.
Stodart, Anthony (Edinburgh, W.)


Grylls, Michael
Meyer, Sir Anthony
Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M.


Gummer, Selwyn
Mills, Peter (Torrington)
Stokes, John


Gurden, Harold
Mills, Stratton, (Belfast, N.)
Stuttaford, Dr. Tom


Hall, Miss Joan (Keighley)
Miscampbell, Norman
Sutcliffe, John


Hall, John (Wycombe)
Mitchell,Lt.-Col.C.(Aberdeenshire, W)
Tapsell, Peter


Hall-Davis, A. G. F.
Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)
Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)


Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
Moate, Roger
Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)


Hannam, John (Exeter)
Molyneaux, James
Taylor, Robert (Croydon, N.W.)


Harrison, Brian (Maldon)
Money, Ernie
Tebbit, Norman


Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere
Monks, Mrs. Connie
Temple, John M.


Haselhurst, Alan
Montgomery, Fergus
Thatcher, Rt. Hn. Mrs. Margaret


Havers, Michael
More, Jasper
Thomas, John Stradling (Monmouth)


Hawkins, Paul
Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh)
Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon, S.)


Hay, John
Morgan-Giles, Rear-Adm.
Trafford, Dr. Anthony


Hayhoe, Barney
Mudd, David
Trew, Peter


Heseltine, Michael
Murton, Oscar
Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H.


Hicks, Robert
Nabarro, Sir Gerald
Van Straubenzee, W. R.


Higgins, Terence L.
Neave, Airey
Vickers, Dame Joan


Hiley, Joseph
Nicholls, Sir Harmar
Waddington, David


Hill, John E. B. (Norfolk, S.)
Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael
Walden, David (Clitheroe)


Hill, James (Southampton, Test)
Normanton, Tom
Walker, Rt. Hn. Peter (Worcester)


Holland, Philip
Nott, Jobn
Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek


Holt, Miss Mary
Onslow, Cranley
Wall, Patrick


Hooson, Emlyn
Onslow, Cranley
Walters, Dennis


Hordern, Peter
Oppenheim, Mrs. Sally
Ward, Dame Irene


Hornby, Richard
Orr, Capt. L. P. S.
Warren, Kenneth


Hornsby-Smith,Rt.Hn.DamePatricia
Osborn, John
Weatherill, Bernard


Howe, Hn. Sir Geoffrey (Reigate)
Owen, Idris (Stockport, N.)
Wells, John (Maidstone)


Howell, David (Guildford)
Page, Graham (Crosby)
White, Roger, (Gravesend)


Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, N.)
Page, John (Harrow, W.)
Wiggin, Jerry


Hunt, John
Parkinson, Cecil (Enfield, W.)
Wilkinson, John


Hutchison, Michael Clark
Percival, Ian
Wolrige- Gordon, Patrick


Iremonger, T. L.
Pike, Miss Mervyn
Woodhouse, Hn. Christpher


James, David
Pink, R. Bonner
Worsley, Marcus


Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)
Pounder, Rafton
Wylie, Rt. Hn. N. R.


Jessel, Toby
Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch
Younger, Hn. George


Johnson Smith G. (E. Grinstead)
Prior, Rt. Hn. J. M. L.



Jopling, Michael
Pym, Rt. Hn. Francis
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Joseph, Rt. Hn. Sir Keith
Quennell, Miss J. M.
Mr. Tim Fortescue and


Kellett, Mrs. Elaine
Raison, Timothy
Mr. Hugh Rossi.




NOES


Albu, Austen
Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Booth, Albert


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Barnett, Joel
Bradley, Tom


Allen, Scholefield
Beaney, Alan
Brown, Bob (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne,W.)


Archer, Peter (Rowley Regis)
Bennett, James (Glasgow, Bridgeton)
Brown, Hugh D. (G'gow, Provan)


Armstrong, Ernest
Bidwell, Sydney
Brown, Ronald (Shoreditch &amp; F'bury)


Ashley, Jack
Bishop, E. S.
Buchan, Norman


Ashton, Joe
Blenkinsop, Arthur
Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)


Atkinson, Norman
Boardman, H. (Leigh)
Callaghan, Rt. Hn. James







Campbell, I. (Dunbartonshire, W.)
Huckfield, Leslie
Paget, R. T.


Cant, R. B.
Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cladwyn (Anglesey)
Palmer, Arthur


Carmichael, Neil
Hughes, Mark (Durham)
Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles


Carter, Ray (Birmingham, Northfield)
Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Parker, John (Dagenham)


Carter-Jones, Lewis (Eccles)
Hunter, Adam
Parry, Robert (Liverpool, Exchange)


Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara
Irvine,Rt.Hn.SirArthur(Edge Hill)
Pavitt, Laurie


Clark, David (Colne Valley)
Janner, Greville
Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred


Cocks, Michael (Bristol, S.)
Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Pendry, Tom


Cohen, Stanley
Jeger,Mrs.Lena(H'b'n&amp;St.P'cras,S.)
Pentland, Norman


Concannon, J. D.
Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)
Perry, Ernest G.


Conlan, Bernard
John, Brynmor
Prantice, Rt. Hn. Reg.


Corbet, Mrs. Freda
Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)
Prescott, John


Cox, Thomas (Wandsworth, C.)
Johnson, James (K'ston-on-Hull, W.)
Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)


Crawshaw, Richard
Johnson, Walter (Derby, S.)
Probert, Arthur


Cronin, John
Jones, Barry (Flint, E.)
Rankin, John


Crosland, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Reed, D. (Sedgefield)


Crossman, Rt. Hn. Richard
Jones,Rt.Hn.Sir Elwyn(W.Ham,S.)
Rees, Merlyn (Leeds, S.)


Cunningham, G. (Islington, S.W.)
Jones, Gwynoro (Carmarthen)
Rhodes, Geoffrey


Dalyell, Tam
Judd, Frank
Richard, Ivor


Darling, Rt. Hn. George
Kaufman, Gerald
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)


Davidson, Arthur
Kelley, Richard
Roberts,Rt.Hn.Goronwy(Caernarvon)


Davies, Denzil (Llanelly)
Kerr, Russell
Robertson, John (Paisley)


Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)
Kinnock, Neil
Roderick, Caerwyn E.(Br'c'n&amp;R'dnor)


Davies, S. O. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Lambie, David
Rodgers, William (Stockton-on-Tees)


Davis, Clinton (Hackney, C.)
Lamond, James
Roper, John


Deakins, Eric
Latham, Arthur
Rose, Paul B.


Delargy, H. J.
Lawson, George
Ross, Rt. Hn. William (Kilmarnock)


Dell, Rt. Hn. Edmund
Leadbitter, Ted
Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-under-Lyne)


Dempsey, James
Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick
Shore, Rt. Hn. Peter (Stepney)


Doig, Peter
Leonard, Dick
Short,Rt.Hn. Edward(N'c'tle-u-Tyne)


Dormand, J. D.
Lestor, Miss Joan
Short, Mrs. Renée (W'hampton,N.E.)


Douglas, Dick (Stirlingshire, E.)
Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham N.)
Silkin, Hn. S. C. (Dulwich)


Douglas-Mann, Bruce
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Sillars, James


Driberg, Tom
Lipton, Marcus
Silverman, Julius


Duffy, A. E. P.
Lomas, Kenneth
Skinner, Dennis


Dunn, James A.
Loughlin, Charles
Small, William


Dunnett, Jack
Lyon, Alexander W. (York)
Smith, John (Lanarkshire, N.)


Eddie, Alex
Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)
Spearing, Nigel


Edwards, Robert (Bilston)
Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson
Spriggs, Leslie


Edwards, William (Merioneth)
McBride, Neil
Stallard, A. W.


Ellis, Tom
McCartney, Hugh
Stoddart, David (Swindon)


English, Michael
McElhone, Frank
Storehouse, Rt. Hn. John


Evans, Fred
McGuire, Michael
Strang, Gavin


Fernyhough, Rt. Hn. E.
Mackenzie, Gregor
Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R.


Fisher, Mrs.Doris(B'ham,Ladywood)
Mackie, John
Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley


Fitch, Alan (Wigan)
Mackintosh, John P.
Swain, Thomas


Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Maclennan, Robert
Taverne, Dick


Foley, Maurice
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)
Thomas,Rt.Hn.George (Cardiff,W.)


Foot, Michael
McNamara, J. Kevin
Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)


Ford, Ben
MacPherson, Malcolm
Thomson, Rt. Hn. G. (Dundee, E.)


Forrester, John
Mahon, Simon (Bootle)
Tinn, James


Fraser, John (Norwood)
Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield, E.)
Tomney, Frank


Freeson, Reginald
Marks, Kenneth
Tuck, Raphael


Galpern, Sir Myer
Marquand, David
Urwin, T. W.


Garrett, W. E.
Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy
Valey, Eric G.


Gilbert, Dr. John
Meacher, Michael
Wainwright, Edwin


Ginsburg, David
Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


Golding, John
Mendelson, John
Wallace, George


Gourlay, Harry
Mikardo, Ian
Watkins, David


Grant, George (Morpeth)
Millan, Bruce
Weitzman, David


Grant, John D. (Islington, E.)
Miller, Dr. M. S.
Wellbeloved, James


Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside)
Mine, Edward (Blyth)
Wells, William (Walsall, N.)


Griffiths, Will (Exchange)
Molloy, William
White, James (Glasgow, Pollok)


Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)
Whitehead, Phillip


Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)
Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)
Whitlock, William


Handing, William
Morris, Rt. Hn. John (Aberavon)
Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick


Hannan, William (G'gow, Maryhill)
Moyle, Roland
Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)


Hardy, Peter
Mulley, Rt. Hn. Frederick
Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)


Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
Murray, Ronald King
Williams, W. T. (Warrington)


Hart, Rt. Hn. Judith
Ogden, Eric
Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)


Hattersley, Roy
O'Halloran, Michael
Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)


Heffer, Eric S.
O'Malley, Brian



Hilton, W. S.
Oram, Bert
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Horam, John
Orme, Stanley
Mr. Joseph Harper and


Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Oswald, Thomas
Mr. Donald Coleman.


Howell, Denis (Small Heath)
Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, Sutton)

Clause 116 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

[Mr. E.L. MALLALIEU in the Chair]

Clause 117

AVOIDANCE OF ENCROACHMENT ON JURISDICTION OF INDUSTRIAL COURT OR OF INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNALS.

Mr. John Fraser: I beg to move Amendment No. 859, in page 82, line 19, leave out 'may' and insert 'shall'.
There ought to be another Amendment to the Clause, to leave out "may" in line 4. It has not been tabled, and I make that point clear in case it appears that there is inconsistency.
The Clause states that if proceedings are taken in the High Court other than the Industrial Court division,
the court may stay the proceedings
if they are proceedings in tort, if the act in respect of which a complaint is made could be proceeded with in the Industrial Court.
The court is given a discretion whether or not it stays the proceedings. That leaves one open to the suspicion that there could be concurrent jurisdiction in two divisions of the High Court in respect of the same act. It may be that the court would exercise its discretion the other way and not stay the proceedings in tort if taken in the Queen's Bench Division. This could mean that a trade union official or member was liable to an action in tort in the Queen's Bench Division and, because the court had not exercised discretion to stay those proceedings, could also be liable to proceedings for unfair industrial practice in the National Industrial Relations Court.
It is not the purpose of the Amendment to sanction the existence of the Industrial Relations Court, but it is only by putting down the Amendment that we can draw attention to this fact.
The Clause needs explanation. It says that:
Where in any court proceedings in tort are brought against a person in respect of any act done by him or on his behalf, the court may stay the proceedings…
The word used is "tort". On the other hand, Clause 119 states:
The Industrial Court shall not have any jurisdiction except that which is expressingly conferred on it by or under this Act; and

accordingly that Court shall not entertain any proceedings in tort.
It seems clear that again there is an overlap of jurisdiction and that people may be exposed to two actions in two different courts. Whilst Clause 119 says that the Industrial Court cannot entertain an action in tort, Clause 117 says that the High Court may stay an action in tort whenever remedies lie in the Industrial Court. It is clear that there is an overlap. We want some examples from the Government as to what these kinds of action are.
Another reason for proposing the word "shall" instead of "may" is that it is not beyond the wit of lawyers and judges to invent some new torts. Torts have been invented in the past arising out of the provisions of, say, the Factories Acts. The Factories Acts contain provision that machinery has to be guarded. They do not say that that creates a civil liability between one person and another, but a hybrid known as a statutory tort has been invented, where a Statute has created a criminal offence for the workpeople or the community at large, and the courts have invented a civil wrong after that which gives rise to an action for damages. Therefore, although the Factories Acts make it a criminal offence not to fence machinery, people can properly bring actions in civil courts for failure to fence. According to my understanding, that is what is known as a statutory tort. That is fine.
The Bill creates all kinds of illegal acts. Some of them are called unfair industrial practices. Some are called things that are void. For instance, the closed shop is made void. Others are called general principles. They all create an aura of legality or illegality about a whole series of activities which are undertaken in industry.
We have no assurance that there will not be a new tort of conspiracy to commit an unfair industrial practice. It would not be beyond the wit of a lawyer or a judge to invent such a tort. Therefore, under the Clause it would be possible for one set of people to be sued in the National Industrial Relations Court for damages—or compensation, as the Government care to put it—for an unfair industrial practice and for the same set of people to be sued in the Queen's Bench


Division for damages to commit an unlawful act.
Although the Government have said from time to time that the provisions of the Bill do not create actions for damages against individual workmen, if the concept of conspiracy, which has been known in the law for some time and which was used in Rookes v. Barnard to cover some extraneous illegal act which was not in itself actionable but which became actionable when latched on to something, is pursued it will be possible for individual workers who have come out on strike to be sued for damages for tort as well as there being proceedings against officials, a trade union or an organisation of workers in the National Industrial Relations Court.
The Amendment is addressed to that problem. We are against the National Industrial Relations Court, but we must have a hook on which to hang this discussion.

The Solicitor-General: The argument advanced by the hon. Member for Norwood (Mr. John Fraser) is obviously one which it is possible within the context of the National Industrial Relations Court to advance perfectly respectably and with anxiety. I take the hon. Gentleman's point to the effect that logically the same Amendment should be made in line 4 of Clause 117.
The reason "may" is used in each case rather than "shall" is certainly not to leave the ordinary courts with the opportunity of foraging round creating new torts and new remedies in respect of industrial relations matters. The object of the Clause is the
avoidance of encroachment on jurisdiction of Industrial Court or of industrial tribunals".
The idea of it is, together with Clause 118, to keep proceedings which have an industrial relations flavour about them out of the ordinary courts. The important thing is to look at Clause 118, because that is the principal effective excluder of the jurisdiction of the ordinary court. Clause 118(1,a) extends more widely than in relation to contracts of employment. The remaining subsections of that Clause are intended to

exclude industrial relations torts or proceedings from the ordinary courts. The provisions of Clause 117 are designed for two purposes. They are designed to meet the point the hon. Gentleman has in mind, namely, the possibility of new torts being invented in an industrial relations situation. Therefore, on that view, the hon. Gentleman might argue that "shall" should be there to ensure that any such new torts should be kept within the industrial relations network.

Mr. John Fraser: No—not invented at all.

The Solicitor-General: That may be right. I can see the point of that. If a new tort begins to be invented in relation to an industrial relations matter, we are not in favour of encouraging that kind of invention or growth when it can be dealt with in the context of the National Industrial Relations Court, although there may be a difference of view between both sides of the Committee about that. We feel that, if any new grievance is felt, if it can be formulated within the context of an industrial practice, the Industrial Relations Court is the right place to hear it. One would not be unsympathetic to the word "shall", if that were the only object of the exercise.
9.0 p.m.
But there is this difficulty, that there will be some borderline cases where it is not clear at the outset whether they have an industrial relations quality or not. To take an obvious example, there have been many cases in the past where the question has turned on whether or not the proceedings relate to a trade dispute. Under these provisions as well, if proceedings are brought by a plaintiff who says, "These are nothing to do with an industrial dispute in the context of this Bill", and the defendant says, "Yes they are', it would not be clear at that point which court they should be in.
It is therefore sensible, when there could be this overlap of jurisdiction, to allow them to be started in the ordinary court but for that court to have the power, if it became clear that it was an idustrial dispute, because that was a case


which could be presented as an unfair industrial practice, to stay those proceedings and allow them to be brought, if at all, in the Industrial Relations Court or the industrial tribunal.
It is because one cannot identify in advance the way in which some such case might be formulated, it is because one wants to be certain that the plaintiff would not fall between two stools and that the defendant would not be sued in two courts at the same time, that the word "may" is included.
It is possible now, under the rule-making powers of the ordinary High Court, to make rules spelling out more clearly the cases in which a stay should be granted, in other words, to direct the discretion of the court to meet the points which the hon. Member has in mind. But it is not the intention to leave the way open by means of Clause 117 for new inventions of industrial conspiracy which would put the introduction of new actions in respect of industrial relations matters in the ordinary courts. It is designed only to meet these mixed borderline cases.

Sir Edward Brown: My hon. and learned Friend's interpretation is acceptable to this side, at least for the time being, but when the matter reaches the court, may we be assured that the judge would not interpret the word "may" as giving him the right to go up or go back?

The Solicitor-General: I cannot of course give that assurance. But I can assure my hon. Friend, however, that rules can be made under the existing rules of the Supreme Court, and it would be my right hon. and noble Friend's intention to make such rules, making it plain that this discretion should be exercised in such a way as to ensure that the ordinary courts do not take jurisdiction in respect of industrial relations matters. But the effective excluder of the ordinary courts from industrial cases is substantially already there in Clause 118. This is designed as a vital check to ensure that any other case which comes around the check can be steered back into the Industrial Relations Court.
I hope that the hon. Member for Norwood (Mr. John Fraser) will acknowledge

that, if one included the word "shall", it might be possible for proceedings to be stayed in the ordinary court as a matter of compulsion, and yet for there to be no remedy in respect of any other court.
There may be cases which could, at first sight, appear to have an industrial flavour but which might turn out not to be in that category. It might be possible for cases to be presented in one way rather than the other the first time round, and it is because one cannot foresee all these possibilities that one must leave this discretion to the ordinary courts, as provided by the word "may".
The intention of the Government in this Clause is to ensure that industrial relations cases are not heard in the ordinary courts but in the special Industrial Relations Court which is being established to deal with them.

Mr. Ian Percival: The law and lawyers having been under fire for several months, one might be permitted a moment to take up a point which was made by the hon. Member for Norwood (Mr. John Fraser). His criticism is that the courts have in the past invented new torts.
The Committee should bear in mind that the hon. Gentleman is talking about the adaptation of the law of tort to embrace a tort called "breach of statutory duty", a sphere of the law which has been of enormous benefit to employees, and rightly so, because the courts have said, in effect, "It is all very well to have criminal offences, but that does not help the man who has been injured. We will see that the injured man has a remedy, and not just in negligence. We will say that the basis of the law of tort is that where there is a duty and damage, the damaged person should be recompensed, and we will apply that to the industrial scene."
I hope that hon. Gentlemen opposite will remember that here is an instance of where the law was not inventing something for the fun of it but was adapting a philosophy of the common law to provide a remedy for people who would not otherwise have had it. If that is invention, then I hope that the judges of the Queen's Bench Division will go on inventing as hard as they can for as long as they are allowed to do so.

Question put, That the Amendment be made:—

Division No. 191.
AYES
[9.07 p.m.


Abse, Leo
Freeson, Reginald
Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy


Albu, Austen
Galpern, Sir Myer
Mayhew, Christopher


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Garrett, W. E.
Meacher, Michael


Allen, Scholefield
Gilbert, Dr. John
Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert


Archer, Peter (Rowley Regis)
Ginsburg, David
Mendelson, John


Armstrong, Ernest
Golding, John
Mikardo, Ian


Ashley, Jack
Gourlay, Harry
Millan, Bruce


Ashton, Joe
Grant, George (Morpeth)
Miller, Dr. M. S.


Atkinson, Norman
Grant, John D. (Islington, E.)
Milne, Edward (Blyth)


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside)
Molloy, William


Barnett, Joel
Griffiths, Will (Exchange)
Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)


Beaney, Alan
Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)


Bennett, James (Glasgow, Bridgeton)
Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)
Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)


Bidwell, Sydney
Hamling, William
Morris, Rt. Hn, John (Aberavon)


Bishop, E. S.
Hannan, William (G'gow, Maryhill)
Moyle, Roland


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Hardy, Peter
Mulley, Rt. Hn. Frederick


Boardman, H. (Leigh)
Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
Murray, Ronald King


Booth, Albert
Hart, Rt. Hn. Judith
Ogden, Eric


Bradley, Tom
Hattersley, Roy
O'Halloran, Michael


Brown, Bob (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne,W.)
Heffer, Eric S.
O'Malley, Brian


Brown, Hugh D. (G'gow, Provan)
Hilton, W. S.
Oram, Bert


Brown, Ronald (Shoreditch &amp; F'bury)
Horam, John
Orme, Stanley


Buchan, Norman
Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Oswald, Thomas


Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)
Howell, Denis (Small Heath)
Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, Sutton)


Callaghan, Rt. Hn. James
Huckfield, Leslie
Paget, R. T.


Campbell, I. (Dunbartonshire, W.)
Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey)
Palmer, Arthur


Cant, R. B.
Hughes, Mark (Durham)
Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles


Carmichael, Neil
Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Parker, John (Dagenham)


Carter, Ray (Birmingh'm,Northfield)
Hunter, Adam
Parry, Robert (Liverpool, Exchange)


Carter-Jones, Lewis (Eccles)
Irvine,Rt.Hn.SirArthur(EdgeHill)
Pavitt, Laurie


Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara
Janner, Greville
Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred


Clark, David (Colne Valley)
Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Pendry, Tom


Cocks, Michael (Bristol, S.)
Jeger, Mrs.Lena(H'b'n&amp;St.P'cras,S.)
Pentland, Norman


Cohen, Stanley
Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)
Perry, Ernest G.


Coleman, Donald
John, Brynmor
Prentice, Rt. Hn. Reg.


Concannon, J. D.
Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)
Prescott, John


Conlan, Bernard
Johnson, James (K'ston-on-Hull,W.)
Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)


Corbet, Mrs. Freda
Johnson, Walter (Derby, S.)
Probert, Arthur


Cox, Thomas (Wandsworth, C.)
Jones, Barry (Flint, E.)
Rankin, John


Crawshaw, Richard
Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Reed, D. (Sedgefield)


Cronin, John
Jones,Rt.Hn.SirElwyn(W.Ham,S.)
Rees, Merlyn (Leeds, S.)


Crosland, Rt. Hn, Anthony
Jones, Gwynoro (Carmarthen)
Rhodes, Geoffrey


Crossman, Rt. Hn. Richard
Judd, Frank
Richard, Ivor


Cunningham, G. (Islington, S.W.)
Kaufman, Gerald
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)


Dalyell, Tam
Kelley, Richard
Roberts,Rt.Hn.Goronwy(Caernarvon)


Darling, Rt. Hn. George
Kerr, Russell
Robertson, John (Paisley)


Davidson, Arthur
Kinnock, Neil
Roderick, Caerwyn E.(Br'c'n&amp;R'dnor)


Davies, Denzil (Llanelly)
Lambie, David
Roper, John


Davies, G, Elfed (Rhondda, E.)
Lamond, James
Rose, Paul B.


Davies, S. O. (Merthyr Tydfil)
Latham, Arthur
Rose, Rt. Hn. William (Kilmarnock)


Davis, Clinton (Hackney, C.)
Lawson, George
Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-under-Lyne)


Deakins, Eric
Leadbitter, Ted
Shore, Rt. Hn. Peter (Stepney)


Delargy, H. J.
Lee, Rt. Hn, Frederick
Short,Rt.Hn.Edward(N'c'tle-u-Tyne)


Dell, Rt. Hn. Edmund
Leonard, Dick
Short, Mrs. Renée (W'hampton,N.E.)


Dempsey, James
Lestor, Miss Joan
Silkin, Hn. S. C. (Dulwich)


Doig, Peter
Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham N.)
Sillars, James


Dormand, J. D.
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Silverman, Julius


Douglas, Dick (Stirlingshire, E.)
Lipton, Marcus
Skinner, Dennis


Douglas-Mann, Bruce
Lomas, Kenneth
Small, William


Driberg, Tom
Loughlin, Charles
Smith, John (Lanarkshire, N.)


Duffy, A. E. P.
Lyon, Alexander W. (York)
Spearing, Nigel


Dunn, Jams A.
Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)
Spriggs, Leslie


Dunnett, Jack
Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson
Stallard, A. W.


Eadie, Alex
McBride, Neil
Stewart, Donald (Western Isles)


Edwards, Robert (Bilston)
McCartney, Hugh
Stoddart, David (Swindon)


Edwards, William (Merioneth)
McElhone, Frank
Stonehouse, Rt. Hn. John


Ellis, Tom
McGuire, Michael
Strang, Gavin


English, Michael
Mackenzie, Gregor
Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R.


Evans, Fred
Mackie, John
Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley


Fernyhough, E.
Mackintosh, John P.
Swain, Thomas


Fisher, Mrs.Doris(B'ham,Ladywood)
Maclennan, Robert
Thomas,Rt.Hn.George (Cardiff,W.)


Fitch, Alan (Wigan)
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)
Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)


Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
McNamara, J. Kevin
Thomson, Rt. Hn. G. (Dundee, E.)


Foley, Maurice
MacPherson, Malcolm
Tinn, James


Foot, Michael
Mahon, Simon (Bootle)
Tomney, Frank


Ford, Ben
Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield, E.)
Tuck, Raphael


Forrester, John
Marquand, David
Urwin, T. W.


Fraser, John (Norwood)

The Committee divided: Ayes 250, Noes 281.

Varley, Eric G.
White, James (Glasgow, Pollok)
Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)


Wainwright, Edwin
Whitehead, Phillip
Wilson, Rt. Hn. Harold (Huyton)


Walker, Harold (Doncaster)
Whitlock, William
Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)


Wallace, George
Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick



Watkins, David
Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Weitzman, David
Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)
Mr. Joseph Harper and


Wellbeloved, James
Williams, W. T. (Warrington)
Mr. Kenneth Marks.


Wells, William (Walsall, N.)






NOES


Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)
Eyre, Reginald
Kitson, Timothy


Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)
Farr, John
Knox, David


Astor, John
Fell, Anthony
Lambton, Antony


Atkins, Humphrey
Fenner, Mrs. Peggy
Lane, David


Awdry, Daniel
Finsberg, Geoffrey (Hampstead)
Langford-Holt, Sir John


Baker, Kenneth (St. Marylebone)
Fisher, Nigel (Surbiton)
Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry


Baker, W. H. K. (Banff)
Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)


Balniel, Lord
Fookes, Miss Janet
Lloyd,Rt.Hn.Geoffrey(Sut'nC'dfield)


Barber, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Fraser,Rt.Hn.Hugh(St'fford &amp; Stone)
Lloyd, Ian (P'tsm'th, Langstone)


Batsford, Brian
Fry, Peter
Longden, Gilbert


Bell, Ronald
Galbraith, Hn. T. G.
Loveridge, John


Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torquay)
Gardner, Edward
MacArthur, Ian


Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gosport)
Gibson-Watt, David
McCrindle, R. A.


Benyon, W.
Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)
McLaren, Martin


Berry, Hn. Anthony
Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)
Maclean, Sir Fitzroy


Biffen, John
Glyn, Dr. Alan
McMaster, Stanley


Biggs-Davison, John
Godber, Rt. Hn. J. B.
Macmillan, Maurice (Farnham)


Blaker, Peter
Goodhart, Philip
McNair-Wilson, Michael


Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S.W.)
Goodhew, Victor
McNair-Wilson, Patrick (NewForest)


Body, Richard
Gorst, John
Maddan, Martin


Boscawen, Robert
Gower, Raymond
Maginnis, John E.


Bossom, Sir Clive
Grant, Anthony (Harrow, C.)
Marten, Neil


Bowden, Andrew
Gray, Hamish
Mather, Carol


Braine, Bernard
Green, Alan
Maude, Angus


Bray, Ronald
Grieve, Percy
Maudling, Rt. Hn. Reginald


Brewis, John
Grimond, Rt. Hn. J.
Mawby, Ray


Brocklebank-Fowler, Christopher
Grylls, Michael
Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.


Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
Gummer, Selwyn
Meyer, Sir Anthony


Bruce-Gardyne, J.
Gurden, Harold
Mills, Peter (Torrington)


Bryan, Paul
Hall, Miss Joan (Keighley)
Mills, Stratton (Belfast, N.)


Buchanan-Smith, Alick(Angus,N&amp;M)
Hall, John (Wycombe)
Miscampbell, Norman


Buck, Antony
Hall-Davis, A. G. F.
Mitchell,Lt.-Col.C.(Aberd'nshire,W.)


Bullus, Sir Eric
Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)


Butler, Adam (Bosworth)
Hannam, John (Exeter)
Moate, Roger


Campbell, Rt.Hn.G.(Moray&amp;Nairn)
Harrison, Brian (Maldon)
Molyneaux, James


Carlisle, Mark
Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere
Money, Ernie


Cary, Sir Robert
Haselhurst, Alan
Monks, Mrs. Connie


Channon, Paul
Havers, Michael
Montgomery, Fergus


Chapman, Sydney
Hawkins, Paul
More, Jasper


Chataway, Rt. Hn. Christopher
Hay, John
Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh)


Chichester-Clark, R.
Hayhoe, Barney
Morgan-Giles, Rear-Adm.


Churchill, W. S.
Heseltine, Michael
Mudd, David


Clark, William (Surrey, E.)
Hicks, Robert
Murton, Oscar


Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Higgins, Terence L.
Nabarro, Sir Gerald


Clegg, Walter
Hiley, Joseph
Neave, Airey


Cockeram, Eric
Hill, John E. B. (Norfolk, S.)
Nicholls, Sir Harmar


Cooke, Robert
Hill, James (Southampton, Test)
Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael


Coombs, Derek
Holland, Philip
Normanton, Tom


Cooper, A. E.
Holt, Miss Mary
Nott, John


Cordle, John
Hooson, Emlyn
Onslow, Cranley


Corfield, Rt. Hn. Frederick
Hordern, Peter
Oppenheim, Mrs. Sally


Cormack, Patrick
Hornby, Richard
Orr, Capt. L. P. S.


Contain, A. P.
Hornsby-Smith,Rt.Hn.Dame Patricia
Osborn, John


Critchley, Julian
Howe, Hn. Sir Geoffrey (Reigate)
Owen, Idris (Stockport, N.)


Crouch, David
Howell, David (Guildford)
Page, Graham (Crosby)


Crowder, F. P.
Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, N.)
Page, John (Harrow, W.)


Curran, Charles
Hunt, John
Parkinson, Cecil (Enfield, W.)


Dalkeith, Earl of
Hutchison, Michael Clark
Percival, Ian


Davies, Rt. Hn. John (Knutsford)
Iremonger, T. L.
Pike, Miss Mervyn


d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry
James, David
Pink, R. Bonner


d'Avigdor-Goldsmid,Maj.-Gen, Jack
Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)
Pounder, Rafton


Dean, Paul
Jessel, Toby
Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch


Digby, Simon Wingfield
Johnson Smith, G. (E. Grinstead)
Price, David (Eastleigh)


Dixon, Piers
Jopling, Michael
Prior, Rt. Hn. J. M. L.


Dodds-Parker, Douglas
Joseph, Rt. Hn. Sir Keith
Pym, Rt. Hn. Francis


Drayson, G. B.
Kellett, Mrs. Elaine
Quennell, Miss J. M.


du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward
Kershaw, Anthony
Raison, Timothy


Dykes, Hugh
Kilfedder, James
Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James


Eden, Sir John
King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)
Rawlinson, Rt. Hn. Sir Peter


Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)
King, Tom (Bridgwater)
Redmond, Robert


Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)
Kinsey, J. R.
Reed, Laurance (Bolton, E.)


Elliott, R. W. (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne,N.)
Kirk, Peter
Rees, Peter (Dover)


Emery, Peter









Rees-Davies, W. R.
Sproat, Iain
Waddington, David


Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David
Stainton, Keith
Walder, David (Clitheroe)


Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon
Stanbrook, Ivor
Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek


Ridley, Hn. Nicholas
Stewart-Smith, D. G. (Belper)
Wall, Patrick


Ridsdale, Julian
Stodart, Anthony (Edinburgh, W.)
Walters, Dennis


Rippon, Rt. Hn. Geoffrey
Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M.
Ward, Dame Irene


Roberts, Michael (Cardiff, N.)
Stokes, John
Warren, Kenneth


Roberts, Wyn (Conway)
Stuttaford, Dr. Tom
Weatherill, Bernard


Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)
Sutcliffe, John
Wells, John (Maidstone)


Rost, Peter
Tapsell, Peter
White, Roger (Gravesend)


Royle, Anthony
Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)
Wiggin, Jerry


Russell, Sir Ronald
Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)
Wilkinson, John


Scott, Nicholas
Taylor, Robert (Croydon, N.W.)
Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick


Scott-Hopkins, James
Tebbit, Norman
Woodhouse, Hn. Christopher


Sharples, Richard
Temple, John M.
Woodnutt, Mark


Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh &amp; Whitby)
Thatcher, Rt. Hn. Mrs. Margaret
Worsley, Marcus


Shelton, William (Clapham)
Thomas, John Stradling (Monmouth)
Wylie, Rt. Hn. N. R.


Simeons, Charles
Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon, S.)
Younger, Hn. George


Skeet, T. H. H.
Trafford, Dr. Anthony



Smith, Dudley (W'wick &amp; L'mington)
Trew, Peter
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Soref, Harold
Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H.
Mr. Hugh Rossi and


Speed, Keith
van Straubenzee, W. R.
Mr. Tim Fortescue.


Spence, John
Vickers, Dame Joan

Mr. Rose: I beg to move Amendment No. 861, in page 82, line 35, at end add:
() Any applicant on an ex-parte motion in the High Court or Court of Session shall give an undertaking that he knows of no circumstances by reason of which the National Industrial Relations Court or an Industrial Tribunal could have jurisdiction over the act for which an injunction or interdict is sought-Furthermore, any ex-parte injunction or interdict may be given in the High Court or Court of Session in any action involving or touching upon any workers' organisation.
My hon. Friend the Member for Norwood (Mr. John Fraser has drawn attention to the fact that we are now entering a different field, that of overlapping jurisdiction, in which considerable difficulty may arise for the court and those before it, particularly as the court may well not know all the facts when it is first seized of a case. It may be very difficult to know whether a case should be taken before the High Court, the Industrial Tribunal or the National Industrial Relations Court. This may well lead to a situation in which we have to have a Bill creating a new court, a conflicts court to decide before which court a case should be taken. That occurs in some Continental systems.
The Amendment arises from this difficulty. The purpose is to ensure that the High Court is satisfied when it deals with a matter that it is not one that should be dealt with by the N.I.R.C. It is in a difficult position, because the limitations on proceedings in tort in the High Court are not, as they are with the N.I.R.C., limited to hearings where both parties are present. Before the High Court there

may be ex-parte proceedings, with no one to argue that the matter should go to the N.I.R.C.
The Government have accepted the principle that ex-parte injunctions should not be granted by the N.I.R.C. Therefore, I ask the Solicitor-General at least to undertake to introduce a provision on Report with regard to ex-parte proceedings. The least the Government can do is to accept that if such a provision applies to the N.I.R.C. it is imperative to ensure that an injunction is not granted ex-parte in the High Court if the matter is one that the High Court would subsequently have to send before the N.I.R.C.
I hope that the hon. and learned Gentleman realises that this is not a political point. It is a legal point of some substance in that a matter may well come before the Industrial Tribunal or the N.I.R.C. at a later stage, and this could bear heavily on the funds of a trade union or on a party who is applying for an ex-parte injunction and who may be forced to go as a defendant later before the High Court. I hope that he will look at this matter very carefully and accept the principle of the Amendment. If he does not, we shall divide the Committee. I think that this is one of those matters on which his inflexibility might yield a little and that he can now make some concession to the Committee.

The Solicitor-General: I am not entirely clear—because the hon. Member for Manchester, Blackley (Mr. Rose) has not explained it, although I make no criticisms of that—whether the Amendment


is printed correctly or not. I am not clear about the last sentence, which begins,
Furthermore, any ex-parte injunction or interdict may be given …
and so on.

Mr. Rose: Perhaps I can help the hon. and learned Gentleman. The words should have been, "an ex-parte injunction". Somehow, a "y" has become attached to "an", making it "any".

The Solicitor-General: I had thought that it might have been meant to be "no" rather than "any" or "an", because that seemed more consistent with the intention of the Amendment, which was designed to limit ex-parte injunctions in industrial matters. But perhaps we can leave that wrapped in obscurity.
I come now to the objective of the Amendment as the hon. Gentleman explained it, and in particular as set out in the first sentence. The objective of the Government in these provisions is set out in paragraph 22(3) of Schedule 2 and is to prevent ex-parte labour injunctions from being granted and to require reasonable steps to be taken to notify the person against whom the application for an injunction has been made. That is expressly set out to be achieved in the ordinary proceedings in the N.I.R.C. There is no doubt about the objective.
If, however, one were to accept the Amendment, in the context of proceedings in the ordinary court it would impose a substantial burden on anyone seeking any kind of ex-parte relief in the High Court, and outside the field of industrial relations, if one always had to specify that the claim one was making gave rise to no circumstances which would accord jurisdiction to the N.I.R.C.

Mr. Rose: Surely the hon. and learned Gentleman realises that, in a matter which does not touch upon industrial relations, the person seeking an injunction would have no difficulty whatever. It is only on these matters which are on the periphery, where there is a possibility of conflict of jurisdiction, that an undertaking would have to be given. It would not affect the law generally but only where there was a possibility ultimately of the matter going before the N.I.R.C. The hon. and learned Gentleman is not making a valid point.

Sir E. Brown: On a point of Order, Mr. Mallalieu. Are we not in a difficulty

here? The Chairman has selected an Amendment and, therefore, we must debate it, but the Opposition have said that the sense of the Amendment as printed is different from their intention. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] The hon. Member for Manchester, Blackley (Mr, Rose) said that a "y" had crept in. The word in the Amendment as printed is "any". Would the Chair be prepared to accept a manuscript Amendment for debate?

The Temporary Chairman: A simple correction is always acceptable. The Amendment seems perfectly well understood by the hon. and learned Solicitor-General at the moment.

The Solicitor-General: I should not make even that claim. I do not want to take a false point, but my hon. Friend the Member for Bath (Sir E. Brown) is quite right to say that there is something slightly odd about debating an Amendment when we are not quite clear what the Amendment is and I am not clear whether the word is "any", "an", or "no". But, if my hon. Friends will support me, I am prepared to deal with the remainder of the Amendment, because the intention of the first sentence at least is clear, and it is to the first sentence that the hon. Member for Blackley has so far spoken.
All I am saying is that to impose a general obligation of this kind across the board in respect of an application for ex-parte relief in the ordinary court would be to impose an additional and unnecessary burden. I appreciate that if it were a case in which someone was seeking an injunction to restrain his wife from taking the children of the family out of the jurisdiction, it would not be difficult to include a pro-forma clause at the end to say that this was a matter not of industrial but of matrimonial relations, on the lines the hon. Gentleman suggested.
But it seems an unnecessary burden to impose, because if a case were to come before the ordinary High Court and it appeared to have an industrial relations flavour and subsequently turned out to be a case which should not be in the High Court at all, the party which tried to pull a fast one, if I may put it like that, by going into the High Court would find within days or hours that an appearance had been entered and it would cease to be ex parte. The point would be made


against him that he had sought the wrong kind of relief in the wrong place, and the injunction would be discharged and he would be faced with the prospect of paying the costs of both sides in the ordinary court. So it would be wholly against the interests of a party to seek to proceed in that way.
Similarly, the High Court would see that the proceedings were ill founded, and if it were such a case that the High Court could not detect that and observe it, the requirement as a matter of form that the plaintiff or applicant should state that it was not an industrial relations case would not prevent him from at least trying to have it from the High Court even when he was not entitled to it. While I am not in any sense out of sympathy with what the hon. Gentleman is seeking to achieve, the object is that an industrial relations case should be brought in the Industrial Relations Court, and the provision is that when such cases are brought there should be no ex-parte injunction and reasonable steps should be taken. If anyone tried to get round that either by ignorance or by misconceived guile, launching an industrial relations case in the ordinary court, he would soon find that it was not to his advantage. In other words, he would find himself faced with the prospect of paying costs of either party in the ill-judged and misguided attempt.

Mr. Gower: Is there not another difficulty? Is it not conceivable that a person would desire to go to the High Court for ex-parte relief and yet that case would ultimately be in the jurisdiction of the Industrial Relations Court? Could there not be such circumstances as would prohibit or make it impossible for such a person to give such an undertaking?

The Solicitor-General: The case could arise where it did not appear at the outset as though the case had any industrial relations flavour, and the original application could have been in respect of something like the ordinary contract disputes, but it might later turn out to be an industrial relations matter. The inclusion of a general provision of this kind is unnecessary, because in practice nobody would seek in any case likely to be able to involve the undertaking to take advantage of the alternative remedies. So the Amendment is not necessary in the form in which it has been moved.

Mr. Rose: Although the Solicitor-General says that this is not needed in this form, he has acknowledged that it is needed because he has said that it would not be to the advantage of a person who did this through ignorance or guile. I am sure that there are employers and trade unions with guile, and certainly a lot of people will be ignorant about the provisions of the overlap of jurisdiction. Under the Bill an organisation of workers is not a corporate body and would not have access unless a provision were included.

Sir E. Brown: On a point of order, Mr. Mallalieu. I must come back to this again. My hon. and learned Friend assured me he was only speaking to one part of the Amendment and it was my intention to raise the second part of the Amendment with you since we are debatting an Amendment which is not on the Order Paper. The hon. Gentleman has referred to the second part of the Amendment in a context which he has already admitted is a mistake. Whether it is "an" or "any" should be part of a manuscript Amendment. May we have your assistance on this?

The Temporary Chairman: It is understood that there has been a misprint and that the word is "an".

Mr. Rose: I do not think that it is a matter of substance whether it is "an" or "any". The hon. Member is taking a bad point. This could put a defendant in the position of facing an ex-parte injunction in circumstances where it could be to his disadvantage. I ask the Solicitor-General in the circumstances to be a little more forthcoming.

Amendment negatived.

Clause 117 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 118

ACTS IN CONTEMPLATION OF FURTHERANCE OF INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE

Mr. Rose: I beg to move Amendment No. 866, in page 82, line 37, leave out 'in tort'.

The Temporary Chairman: With this Amendment it will be convenient if we also discuss Amendment No. 867, in page


83, line 3, leave out 'in tort'. Amendment No. 868, in line 9, leave out 'in tort', and Amendment No. 869, in line 12, leave out 'in tort'.

Mr. Rose: The first, second and third of these Amendments have the intention of reinstating in substance protection of a type similar to that extended by Section 3 of the 1906 Trade Disputes Act. Earlier we debated rather exhaustively Clauses 85 and 87. This Amendment underlines what has happened during the passage of the Bill, namely, that we have by back-door stealth, brought about the destruction of such protection as remained under the 1906 Act simply by the introduction of this alien new concept of an unfair industrial practice and the provisions of Clauses 85 and 87.
These provisions virtually take away the right to strike in a large number of cases, for example, the secondary boycott and the sympathy strike, where the original strike was called without the sanction of the union even if it was subsequently endorsed by the union. At the same time as this new concept has been introduced, the Solicitor-General says that he is keeping the law of tort as an additional weapon in his armoury against the trade unions. My hon. Friend the Member for Norwood (Mr. John Fraser) and I have drawn attention to the problems which will arise as a result of overlapping jurisdiction as between torts, on the one hand, and unfair industrial practices, on the other.
Clauses 6 and 85 deal with individuals inducing a breach and virtually take away protection from those individuals, be they trade union leaders, people commenting on television or political commentators. Because the Solicitor-General refused to answer this question at about a minute to midnight last Wednesday, there is a strong suspicion that Clause 87 overrules Thompson v. Deakin. The decision in Rookes v. Barnard has been reinstated through Clause 6 and Clauses 85 to 87 and the Trade Disputes Act, 1965, has been swept away.
The purpose of the Amendment is merely to underline that by this backdoor method we have not only the refusal of the protection offered by Section 3 of the Trade Disputes Act, but additional hazards for the trade union

movement for those involved in trade disputes. By leaving out the words "in tort", those facing an action would face an action only in one court and for one offence, whereas by retaining both concepts the Solicitor-General has the trade union movement both ways: either it goes before the court as defendants because of an unfair industrial action, or it goes before the other court because it is guilty, or allegedly guilty, by reason of a tort.
We wish to extend the protection which can be given under the Clause in only a very modest way to get back to something like the position of 1906. We do not think that this is a particularly large or difficult demand to meet. This is a very modest Amendment to reinstate a certain degree of protection, in tort, bearing in mind that under Clauses 85 to 87 an intolerable burden has been imposed upon the trade union movement by virtually outlawing in a large area of industrial action the right to strike.

The Solicitor-General: There may be a misunderstanding about the object of the Amendment, but the intention of Clause 118, including the words which the Amendment seeks to leave out, is to preserve the exclusion from the ordinary courts of actions which were excluded from them by Section 3 of the 1906 Act and other statutory provisions. The intention is to make it clear that proceedings in respect of industrial relations complaints about unfair industrial practices can be brought only before the Industrial Relations Court. That is the object of the exercise. The Bill identifies a number of unfair industrial practices and provides remedies for them which are to be granted and considered in the Industrial Relations Court. The object of the exercise is to give the Industrial Relations Court exclusive jurisdiction over such matters.
The purpose of Clause 118 is not to expose people concerned with industrial relations to an alternative or additional liability in tort but expressly to provide that matters which could be actionable in the Industrial Relations Court shall not be actionable in tort in the ordinary courts. It is to make plain that the exclusion of the ordinary courts is to be effective over a wider field than it has


been under the 1906 Act up to now. That is why, for example, Clause 118(1)(a) drops the familiar words "of employment" from Section 3 of the 1906 Act.
The Clause as now formulated achieves the object of protecting people concerned with industrial relations from proceedings in the ordinary courts rather further than has been the case up to now, and preserves our intention, with which there is disagreement on the other side of the Committee, to give to Industrial Courts exclusive jurisdiction in respect of these industrial matters.

Mr. Orme: This is reversing 64 years of law which has stood since the 1906 Act, arising out of the Taff Vale judgment. Will cases such as the Taff Vale case be taken to the Industrial Court and not to the ordinary court?

The Solicitor-General: The Taff Vale judgment involved two concepts. One was the basis of liability and the other was the extent to which the trade union could be found liable. Possible liability is dealt with by the extent to which a trade union can be liable in respect of compensation up to the limit specified in Clause 103. Speaking from instant memory, I think that the exact foundation of liability in the Taff Vale case was in respect of inducing breaches of contracts of employment.

Mr. Orme: Yes.

The Solicitor-General: To reverse that aspect, it would have been necessary to repeal, lock, stock and barrel, Section 3 of the 1906 Act. We have not done that. What we have done is to preserve the extent of Section 3 of the 1906 Act in the ordinary courts but, to a limited extent, to repeal it in the Industrial Relations Court. To make plain the nature of the limit, it is still open to a registered union or its officials acting on its behalf to induce breaches of contract of employment, just as they could under Section 3 of the 1906 Act. It is only the unregistered, unofficial organisation which has had withdrawn from it the Section 3 privileges. In accordance with the recommendations of the Donovan Commission, these Clauses are preserving the exclusion of industrial relations cases from the ordinary court.

Mr. John Mendelson: The Solicitor-General should add, should he not, that, to the extent that the Bill is shot through with other provisions removing the protection of Section 3 of the 1906 Act, he is effectively abolishing the protection of Section 3 over a wide range of industrial practice?

The Solicitor-General: Not so. I am redefining the extent of the immunities conferred by it, as advertised in "Fair Deal at Work" three years ago. I am certainly identifying some unfair practices in respect of which the inducing of industrial action is unfair. To that extent for specific purposes it is being done. In the context of this Clause the protection of the ordinary court remains, and it is the Industrial Court which will be seized of the new jurisdiction.
It is unnecessary to contemplate acceptance of this group of Amendments, although it has been useful for the Committee to have this explanation of the object of the exercise.

Question put, That the Amendment be made:—

The Committee proceeded to a Division:—

The Temporary Chairman: Lock the doors.

Mr. William Rodgers: (seated and covered): On a point of order, Mr. Mallalieu. Can you, in the first place, assure us that the doors were closed six minutes after the Division was called? In the second place, will you take note of the fact that a number of hon. Members were seeking to enter the Chamber but were prevented by an exodus of other hon. Members? In the circumstances, will you consider calling the Division again?

The Temporary Chairman: The correct time of six minutes was allowed. I have taken note of what the hon. Gentleman has said.

Mr. Rodgers: You say that you have taken note of what I have said. What significance are we to attach to that? May we be assured that, in future Divisions, the entrance to the Chamber will not be blocked? Or are we to take it that you now propose to call the Division again?

The Temporary Chairman: Since the full time for the Division was allowed, it is not for me to take any further action.

Mr. Rodgers: Will you be good enough to say in what circumstances action will be taken to ensure that hon. Members leaving the Chamber do not prevent other hon. Members entering in order to vote? With the greatest respect, it is not satisfactory simply to say that you have taken note of my point. What action will be taken to enable hon. Members to record their votes?

The Temporary Chairman: The rules governing Divisions will of course be

Division No. 192.]
AYES
[9.44 p.m.


Abse, Leo
Douglas, Dick (Stirlingshire, E.)
Johnson, Walter (Derby, S.)


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Douglas-Mann, Bruce
Jones, Barry (Flint, E.)


Allen, Scholefield
Driberg, Tom
Jones, Dan (Burnley)


Archer, Peter (Rowley Regis)
Duffy, A. E. P.
Jones,Rt.Hn.SirElwyn(W.Ham,S.)


Ashley, Jack
Dunn, James A.
Jones, Gwynoro (Carmarthen)


Ashton, Joe
Dunnett, Jack
Judd, Frank


Atkinson, Norman
Eadie, Alex
Kaufman, Gerald


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Edwards, Robert (Bilston)
Kelley, Richard


Barnett, Joel
Edwards, William (Merioneth)
Kerr, Russell


Beaney, Alan
Ellis, Tom
Kinnock, Neil


Bennett, James (Glasgow, Bridgeton)
English, Michael
Lambie, David


Bidwell, Sydney
Evans, Fred
Latham, Arthur


Bishop, E. S.
Fernyhough, E.
Lawson, George


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Fisher, Mrs. Doris(B'ham,Ladwood)
Leadbitter, Ted


Boardman, H. (Leigh)
Fitch, Alan (Wigan)
Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick


Booth, Albert
Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Leonard, Dick


Bradley, Tom
Foley, Maurice
Lestor, Miss Joan


Brown, Bob (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne, W.)
Ford, Ben
Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham N.)


Brown, Hugh D. (G'gow, Provan)
Forrester, John
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)


Brown, Ronald (Shoreditch &amp; F'bury)
Fraser, John (Norwood)
Lipton, Marcus


Buchan, Norman
Freeson, Reginald
Lomas, Kenneth


Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)
Galpern, Sir Myer
Loughlin, Charles


Callaghan, Rt. Hn. James
Gilbert, Dr. John
Lyon, Alexander W. (York)


Campbell, I. (Dunbartonshire, W.)
Ginsburg, David
Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)


Cant, R. B.
Golding, John
Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson


Carmichael, Neil
Gourlay, Harry
McBride, Neil


Carter, Ray (Birmingh'm, Northfield)
Grant, George (Morpeth)
McCartney, Hugh


Carter-Jones, Lewis (Eccles)
Grant, John D. (Islington, E.)
McElhone, Frank


Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara
Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside)
McGuire, Michael


Clark, David (Colne Valley)
Griffiths, Will (Exchange)
Mackenzie, Gregor


Cocks, Michael (Bristol, S.)
Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
Mackie, John


Cohen, Stanley
Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)
Mackintosh, John P.


Coleman, Donald
Hamling, William
Maclennan, Robert


Concannon, J. D.
Hannan, William (G'gow, Maryhill)
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)


Conlan, Bernard
Hardy, Peter
McNamara, J. Kevin


Corbet, Mrs. Freda
Harper, Joseph
MacPherson, Malcolm


Cox, Thomas (Wandsworth, C.)
Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
Mahon, Simon (Bootle)


Crawshaw, Richard
Hart, Rt. Hn. Judith
Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield, E.)


Cronin, John
Heffer, Eric S.
Marquand, David


Crosland, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Hilton, W. S.
Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy


Crossman, Rt. Hn. Richard
Horam, John
Mayhew, Christopher


Cunningham, G. (Islington, S.W.)
Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Meacher, Michael


Dalyell, Tam
Howell, Denis (Small Heath)
Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert


Darling, Rt. Hn. George
Huckfield, Leslie
Mendelson, John


Davidson, Arthur
Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey)
Mikardo, Ian


Davies, Denzil (Llanelly)
Hughes, Mark (Durham)
Millan, Bruce


Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)
Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Miller, Dr. M. S.


Davies, S. O. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Hunter, Adam
Milne, Edward (Blyth)


Davis, Clinton (Hackney, C.)
Irvine,Rt.Hn.SirArthur(Edge Hill)
Molloy, William


Deakins, Eric
Janner, Greville
Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)


Delargy, H. J.
Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)


Dell, Rt. Hn. Edmund
Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)
Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)


Dempsey, James
John, Brynmor
Morris, Rt. Hn. John (Aberavon)


Doig, Peter
Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)
Moyle, Roland


Dormand, J. D.
Johnson, James (K'ston-on-Hull, W.)
Malley, Rt. Hn. Frederick

observed. That should enable hon. Members to record their votes correctly.

Mr. Rodgers: Will you confirm that there are precedents for Divisions being cancelled and called again in cases where hon. Members are prevented from voting because the entrance to the Chamber is blocked by an exodus of other hon. Members? That being the case, will you ensure by your action that we are not prevented from entering the Chamber in the course of the next Division?

The Temporary Chairman: I shall of course do my best to see that no hon. Member is obstructed wilfully.

The Committee having divided: Ayes 240, Noes 286.

Murray, Ronald King
Roberts,Rt.Hn.Goronwy(Caernarvon)
Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)


Ogden, Eric
Robertson, John (Paisley)
Thomson, Rt. Hn. G. (Dundee, E.)


O'Halloran, Michael
Roderick, Caerwyn E.(Br'c'n&amp;R'dnor)
Tinn, James


O'Malley, Brian
Roper, John
Tomney, Frank


Oram, Bert
Rose, Paul B.
Tuck, Raphael


Orme, Stanley
Ross, Rt. Hn. William (Kilmarnock)
Urwin, T. W.


Oswald, Thomas
Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-under-Lyne)
Wainwright, Edwin


Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, Sutton)
Shore, Rt. Hn. Peter (Stepney)
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


Paget, R. T.
Short,Rt.Hn.Edward(N'c'tle-u-Tyne)
Wallace, George


Palmer, Arthur
Short, Mrs. Renée (W'hampton,N.E.)
Watkins, David


Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles
Silkin, Hn. S. C. (Dulwich)
Weitzman, David


Parker, John (Dagenham)
Sillars, James
Wellbeloved, James


Parry, Robert (Liverpool, Exchange)
Silverman, Julius
Wells, William (Walsall, N.)


Pavitt, Laurie
Skinner, Dennis
White, James (Glasgow, Pollok)


Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred
Small, William
Whitehead, Phillip


Pendry, Tom
Smith, John (Lanarkshire, N.)
Whitlock, William


Pentland, Norman
Spearing, Nigel
Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick


Perry, Ernest G.
Spriggs, Leslie
Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)


Prentice, Rt. Hn. Reg.
Stallard, A. W.
Williams, W. T. (Warrington)


Prescott, John
Stoddart, David (Swindon)
Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)


Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)
Stonehouse, Rt. Hn. John
Wilson, Rt. Hn. Harold (Huyton)


Probert, Arthur
Strang, Gavin
Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)


Rankin, John
Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R.



Reed, D. (Sedgefield)
Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Rees, Merlyn (Leeds, S.)
Swain, Thomas
Mr Kenneth Marks and


Rhodes, Geoffrey
Thomas,Rt.Hn.George (Cardiff,W.)
Mr. Ernest Armstrong.


Roberts, Albert (Normanton)






NOES


Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)
Crowder, F. P.
Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere


Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)
Curran, Charles
Haselhurst, Alan


Astor, John
Dalkeith, Earl of
Havers, Michael


Atkins, Humphrey
Davies, Rt. Hn. John (Knutsford)
Hawkins, Paul


Awdry, Daniel
d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry
Hayhoe, Barney


Baker, Kenneth (St. Marylebone)
d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Maj.-Gen, Jack
Heseltine, Michael


Baker, W. H. K. (Banff)
Dean, Paul
Hicks, Robert


Balniel, Lord
Digby, Simon Wingfield
Higgins, Terence L.


Barber, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Dixon, Piers
Hiley, Joseph


Batsford, Brian
Dodds-Parker, Douglas
Hill, John E. B. (Norfolk, S.)


Bell, Ronald
Drayson, G. B.
Hill, James (Southampton, Test)


Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torquay)
du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward
Holland, Phillip


Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gosport)
Dykes, Hugh
Holt, Miss Mary


Benyon, W.
Eden, Sir John
Hooson, Emlyn


Berry, Hn. Anthony
Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Hordern, Peter


Biffen, John
Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)
Hornby, Richard


Biggs-Davison, John
Elliott, R. W. (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne,N.)
Hornsby-Smith,Rt.Hn.Dame Patricia


Blaker, Peter
Emery, Peter
Howe, Hn. Sir Geoffrey (Reigate)


Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S.W.)
Eyre, Reginald
Howell, David (Guildford)


Body, Richard
Farr, John
Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, N.)


Boscawen, Robert
Fell, Anthony
Hunt, John


Bossom, Sir Clive
Fenner, Mrs. Peggy
Hutchison, Michael Clark


Bowden, Andrew
Finsberg, Geoffrey (Hampstead)
Iremonger, T. L.


Braine, Bernard
Fisher, Nigel (Surbiton)
James, David


Bray, Ronald
Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)


Brewis, John
Fookes, Miss Janet
Jessel, Toby


Brocklebank-Fowler, Christopher
Fox, Marcus
Johnson Smith, G. (E. Grinstead)


Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
Fry, Peter
Jopling, Michael


Bruce-Gardyne, J.
Galbraith, Hn. T. G.
Joseph, Rt. Hn. Sir Keith


Bryan, Paul
Gardner, Edward
Kaberry, Sir Donald


Buchanan-Smith, Alick(Angus,N&amp;M)
Gibson-Watt, David
Kellett, Mrs. Elaine


Buck, Antony
Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)
Kershaw, Anthony


Bullus, Sir Eric
Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)
Kilfedder, James


Butler, Adam (Bosworth)
Glyn, Dr. Alan
King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)


Campbell, Rt.Hn.G.(Moray&amp;Nairn)
Godber, Rt. Hn. J. B.
King, Tom (Bridgwater)


Carlisle, Mark
Goodhart, Philip
Kinsey, J. R.


Cary, Sir Robert
Goodhew, Victor
Kirk, Peter


Channon, Paul
Gorst, John
Kitson, Timothy


Chapman, Sydney
Gower, Raymond
Knight, Mrs. Jill


Chataway, Rt. Hn. Christopher
Grant, Anthony (Harrow, C.)
Knox, David


Chichester-Clark, R.
Gray, Hamish
Lambton, Antony


Churchill, W. S.
Green, Alan
Lane, David


Clark, William (Surrey, E.)
Grieve, Percy
Langford-Holt, Sir John


Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Griffiths. Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)
Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry


Clegg, Walter
Grimond, Rt. Hn. J.
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)


Cockeram, Eric
Grylls, Micha[...]
Lloyd,Rt.Hn.Geoffrey(Sut'nC'dfield)


Cooke, Robert
Gummer, Selwyn
Lloyd, Ian (P'tsm'th, Langstone)


Coombs, Derek
Gurden, Harold
Longden, Gilbert


Cooper, A. E.
Hall, Miss Joan (Keighley)
Loveridge, John


Corfield, Rt. Hn. Frederick
Hall, John (Wycombe)
MacArthur, Ian


Cormack, Patrick
Hall-Davis, A. G. F
McCrindle, R. A.


Costain, A. P.
Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
McLaren, Martin


Critchley, Julian
Hannam, John (Exeter)
Maclean, Sir Fitzroy


Crouch, David
Harrison, Brian (Maldon)
McMaster, Stanley







Macmillan, Maurice (Farnham)
Percival, Ian
Stodart, Anthony (Edinburgh, W.)


McNair-Wilson, Michael
Pike, Miss Mervyn
Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M.


McNair-Wilson, Patrick (NewForcest)
Pink, R. Bonner
Stokes, John


Maddan, Martin
Pounder, Rafton
Stuttaford, Dr. Tom


Madel, David
Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch
Sutcliffe, John


Maginnis, John E.
Price, David (Eastleigh)
Tapsell, Peter


Marples, Rt. Hn. Ernest
Prior, Rt. Hn. J. M. L.
Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)


Marten, Neil
Proudfoot, Wilfred
Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)


Mather, Carol
Pym, Rt. Hn. Francis
Taylor, Robert (Croydon, N.W.)


Maude, Angus
Quennell, Miss J. M.
Tebbit, Norman


Maudling, Rt. Hn. Reginald
Raison, Timothy
Temple, John M.


Mawby, Ray
Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James
Thatcher, Rt. Hn. Mrs. Margaret


Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.
Rawlinson, Rt. Hn. Sir Peter
Thomas, John Stradling (Monmouth)


Meyer, Sir Anthony
Redmond, Robert
Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon, S.)


Mills, Peter (Torrington)
Reed, Laurance (Bolton, E.)
Trafford, Dr. Anthony


Mills, Stratton (Belfast, N.)
Rees, Peter (Dover)
Trew, Peter


Miscampbell, Norman
Rees-Davies, W. R.
Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H.


Mitchell,Lt.-Col.C.(Aberdeenshire,W)
Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David
van Straubenzee, W. R.


Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon
Vickers, Dame Joan


Moate, Roger
Ridley, Hn. Nicholas
Waddington, David


Molyneaux, James
Ridadale, Julian
Walder, David (Clitheroe)


Money, Ernie
Rippon, Rt. Hn. Geoffrey
Walker, Rt. Hn. Peter (Worcester)


Monks, Mrs. Connie
Roberts, Michael (Cardiff, N.)
Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek


Montgomery, Fergus
Roberts, Wyn (Conway)
Wall, Patrick


More, Jasper
Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)
Walters, Dennis


Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh)
Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)
Ward, Dame Irene


Morgan-Giles, Rear-Adm.
Rost, Peter
Warren, Kenneth


Mudd, David
Royle, Anthony
Weatherill, Bernard


Murton, Oscar
Russell, Sir Ronald
Wells, John (Maidstone)


Nabarro, Sir Gerald
St. John-Stevas, Norman
White, Roger (Gravesend)


Neave, Airey
Scott-Hopkins, James
Wiggin, Jerry


Nicholls, Sir Harmar
Sharples, Richard
Wilkinson, John


Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael
Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh &amp; Whitby)
Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick


Normanton, Tom
Shelton, William (Clapham)
Woodhouse, Hn. Christopher


Nott, John
Simeons, Charles
Woodnutt, Mark


Onslow, Cranley
Skeet, T. H. H.
Worsley, Marcus


Oppenheim, Mrs. Sally
Smith, Dudley (W'wick &amp; L'mington)
Wylie, Rt. Hn. N. R.


Orr, Capt. L. P. S.
Soref, Harold
Younger, Hn. George


Osborn, John
Spence, John



Owen, Idris (Stockport, N.)
Sproat, Iain
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Page, Graham (Crosby)
Stainton, Keith
Mr. Tim Fortescue and


Page, John (Harrow, W.)
Stanbrook, Ivor
Mr. Keith Speed.


Parkinson, Cecil (Enfield, W.)
Stewart-Smith, D. G. (Belper)

Mr. John Prescott: I beg to move Amendment No. 862, in page 82, line 38, leave out `only'.
Many hon. Members who are not trained in the legal profession may think that missing out one word does not mean a great deal. But, after the debates about "may", "shall" and "will" and the connotations which they can have in a Bill of this nature, one wonders how important a single word can be. Certainly the word "only" takes on a tremendous significance.
I tread with some trepidation into this legal sphere, particularly as I am surrounded by many lawyers on both sides. I have spent considerable time listening to the Solicitor-General say that in many cases it is difficult to give a proper answer to the situation and the court will decide. I wonder in that situation whether we may reach the position in Australia where the Solicitor-General, introducing similar laws, was eventually promoted to the court as a judge and had to interpret and define what was meant.
I enjoy one advantage, because I wish to draw the attention of the Committee to the Merchant Shipping Acts and the relevance of the Clause to merchant seamen.
Clause 118 deals with Section 3 of the 1906 Act and also rectifies the 1965 Act which was brought in to deal with the situation brought about by the Rookes v. Barnard decision.
As I understand, and as was pointed out on an earlier Clause, certain difficulties will arise regarding actions in tort out of the mere narrowing of the definition from "trade dispute" to "industrial dispute". I think that other hon. Members may wish to develop that point in regard to the trade unions ashore concerning their activities and liability for actions in tort for what has been considered to this day a normal industrial practice. For example, in the Torquay hotel case the definition of "trade dispute" and "industrial dispute" came clearly to the fore.
The point which I wish to develop concerns the word "only" in Clause 118 which states:
An act done by a person in contemplation or furtherance of an industrial dispute shall not be actionable in tort on the ground only—

(a) that it induces another person to break a contract or
(b) that it consists in his threatening that a contract … will be broken".

It is important to draw to the attention of the Committee that there is a separate penal provision in the Merchant Shipping Act, 1970, in which certain acts ranging from wilful disobedience to certain lawful commands to being absent without leave at the time of sailing can constitute criminal offences.
Section 31 of the Merchant Shipping Act, which deals with being absent without leave at the time of sailing, is pertinent to this point about the word "only" in that if a man who has signed on a ship and signed separate articles, that being his contract of employment, fails to join the ship when it sails, he will be absent without leave and in breach of his contract. Under the Merchant Shipping Act, he will be liable, on summary conviction, to a fine not exceeding £100.
One can imagine the industrial problems which can arise in that situation. For example, if seamen in the course of their employment on a ship find that the captain wishes to dismiss a man in a situation where they feel that something wrong has been done and they do not wish to sail on the ship, but the captain wants to put to sea within 24 hours so that they are not able to give sufficient notice to end their contracts and they walk off, yet the reason is sufficiently strong for the trade union official to say, "Yes, I think you are right to come off the vessel", he will be inducing a breach of contract. In inducing a breach of contract that official, like most other trade union officials in this situation, will be covered, except that he also induces the men to commit a criminal offence—the offence laid down in the Merchant Shipping Act to which I have just referred. This is where the protection becomes important. The Clause states:
… shall not be actionable in tort on the ground only—
(a) that it induces another person to break a contract, or …
threatening that contract.
In this case I am led to believe that the very inducing a person to commit a criminal act in breach of contract would also lead to the possibility of an action in tort against the official and the men concerned, and the trade union.
Clause 117 refers to
Avoidance of encroachment on jurisdiction of Industrial Court or of industrial tribunals
in such matters, but it would offer no protection in this case because the act itself is a criminal act and would be dealt with by another court.
10.0 p.m.
To make my point I refer to other Clauses. Clause 85 is clearly designed to offer protection to the trade union official or those acting on behalf of the union who induce others to breach their contract. This would not be guaranteed to the seaman, again, because of the suggestion that he would be getting them to commit an unlawful act. Therefore, the third parties would have an action in damages against the owners, against the union, and possibly against the officials and the men also. In inducing a breach of contract they commit an unlawful act.
The Cunard v. Stacey case is one of a number in law where this has been brought up. I do not have the necessary confidence in the law to develop the points arising out of that. I seek the Solicitor-General's views on this matter. Does this mean that the trade union official performing his normal industrial function would be made liable to an action in tort against which other trade union officials in their normal affairs are protected?
Other difficulties would arise if this interpretation were accepted, especially regarding Clause 87 and extraneous parties. I do not feel able to develop that legal point. I hope that the Solicitor-General will give guidance as to the role of the trade union official, in regard to shipping, where he commits not only an inducement to breach a contract but also a criminal act.

[Sir ROBERT GRANT-FERRIS in the Chair]

The Solicitor-General: The point has been raised again in a narow compass by the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) obviously in the context of the particular difficulties which


he visualises in the merchant shipping industry, because the inclusion of the word "only" from every other point of view—and as I shall show, from his point of view—repeats the corresponding provisions in existing statute law.
The provisions of the 1871 Act, Section 2, are reproduced in Clause 122(a). The provisions of Section 3 of that Act are reproduced in Clause 122(b). The provisions of the 1906 Act, Section 1, are reproduced in Clause 118(3), and those of the 1906 Act, Section 3, first limb, in Clause 118(1) and of the 1906 Act, Section 3, second limb, Clause 118(2).
There is no change in the substantial provision against the background of which the Merchant Navy's problems have to be considered. The particular part relevant to its problems arises in the context of the Cunard v. Stacey case to some extent from the 1875 Act and to some extent from uncertainty about the effect of that on their position.
As the hon. Gentleman will know better than I, the Merchant Shipping Act, 1970, made changes in that. Indeed, the hon. Member for Doncaster (Mr. Harold Walker), replied to the Standing Committee debate on this Clause in relation to the corresponding provisions in the Merchant Shipping Act, 1970. The effect of the 1970 Act provisions was twofold. They are in Section 42. The effect was to make plain that, notwithstanding any agreement, a merchant seaman can give 48 hours' notice of termination of his contract; so he is able to terminate his contract on that notice, provided that the ship is securely moored in a safe berth in the United Kingdom.
The beneficial effects of that were extended by saying that the 1875 Act would apply to seamen, contrary to the original exception from the 1875 Act. So to that extent the doubts raised by Cunard v. Stacey were removed by the 1970 Act.
The Bill does nothing to disturb that balance. I appreciate that the hon. Gentleman and his colleagues were not altogether happy that the last Government had gone as far as they would have liked in the context of the 1970 Act. I appreciate that the hon. Gentleman, again with others, has suggested that this would be an opportunity for us to march further down the road away from the 1896 Act.

However, as the 1970 Act has been on the Statute Book for only a few months—indeed, I am not sure that all of it has been in force for even that long—we do not consider that this is the time or place in which to begin disturbing the uneasy settlement which the hon. Member for Doncaster defended in Standing Committee on the 1970 Bill.
The point about which the hon. Gentleman is anxious is whether anything has been done in the Bill to disturb that balance adversely.

Mr. Prescott: I appreciate fully that the Bill does not change the position under the Merchant Shipping Act, 1906, the previous Merchant Shipping Acts, or the 1970 Act. My case is that a trade union official, be he an official of the seamen's union or an official of a trade union ashore, should have the right to call upon people in a dispute situation to come out on strike, which would be an inducement of a breach of contract. By so doing he would render himself liable to an action in tort for damages, something which would not apply to any other trade union official in a similar situation. The Consultative Documents says that the Government wish to remove the aspect of criminality from industrial relations. Indeed, they do this, by means of a later Clause, in respect of gas and electricity workers and the 1875 Act. Is it fair to leave an official of the seamen's union who is performing his normal trade union function liable to a action in court?

The Solicitor-General: The fact that the criminal law is involved to the extent specified in the 1970 Act is something which was the subject of an uneasy compromise last year, and we do not propose to alter that balance. The criminal nature of the provisions in the 1970 Act are those which represent an advance from the 1894 Act. That is a different argument, not in the context of this debate.
The hon. Gentleman raises the separate point that, because merchant seamen can in certain circumstances commit a criminal offence under the 1970 Act by breaking their contracts of employment or by doing other things, therefore the trade union organiser of merchant seamen is unusually exposed to a certain type of action because he would be inducing,


not breaches of contract of employment, but the commission of criminal offences.
It is doubtful whether that gives rise to a separate cause of action in conspiracy against such an official. Cunard v. Stacey was only an interim decision. It was given in circumstances when the 1875 Act plainly did not apply to seamen; and, if anything, it is even less likely that a decision would be given adverse to the trade union official now than it was then. This Bill does not change that provision. We have not thought it right to do so. I am not prepared to tell the hon. Gentleman that we will take this opportunity to change that part of the law specially designed to affect merchant seamen.

Mr. Prescott: Except that the Government have said that the Bill is to strengthen trade unionism. This is a classical example of how they can do it.

The Solicitor-General: We are doing great things in the Bill, but we are not necessarily undertaking to redress, restore or rewrite all the positions of balance so recently reached by the previous Administration on this topic. I know that the general application of the criminal law to the contracts of merchant seamen has been long debated and will continue to be debated, but this is not for this Bill.
The narrower point of the hazards has been diminished by the 1970 Act and has not been increased by this Bill. It is right for the hon. Gentleman to ventilate again the case he has ventilated so often before, but it is not necessary to change this Bill to deal with that case.

Mr. Loughlin: Is not part of my hon. Friend's case the fact that a trade union official dealing with merchant seamen will be exposed under the Bill to a further sanction—a liability to actions in tort? This means that it is a double-ended weapon. Could the hon. and learned Gentleman look into this to see whether some assistance could be given?

The Solicitor-General: The hon. Gentleman misunderstands. The Bill does not expose the union official dealing with seamen to actions in tort any more than he is already. It is maintaining the

immunity from such actions to the existing extent. There is no change on that. It is doubtful whether there is any special liability to an action for the tort of conspiracy for those organising merchant seamen, even as the law stands.
The Bill does not change that—

Mr. Prescott: It is not improving it.

The Solicitor-General: No, we are improving many things but we have not taken that on board, and this does not seem to be the right time or place to do it.

Mr. Harold Walker: I hope that the Solicitor-General was not taking refuge in what I said when the Merchant Shipping Bill was going through the House in 1970. I would remind him of two things that I said on Report dealing with the penal provisions of the Bill. The first was the important principle that no Government can govern without the consent of those to whom their laws apply, and that, if it was the wish of the industry to pursue the path being proposed to the House by my hon. Friends, we, the then Government, would be all too ready sympathetically to respond.
The second important point which we expressed then—I do not want to rely too much on memory here or to over-commit myself—was that we gave in that situation, which is changed by this Bill, a pledge to the National Union of Seamen to review the situation in a short time to see whether the new machinery being created in the industry necessitated the perpetuation of the penal provisions.

10.15 p.m.

Mr. McNamara: I rise simply to underline the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster (Mr. Harold Walker) because it was my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) and I, when we pressed the then Government on the question of penal sanctions, were given the impression that this matter would be reviewed in about two years' time. As about one year has passed and as the then Opposition did not dissent from what was said, we are looking forward to the time when the present Government will review the situation.

Question put, That the Amendment be made:—

Division No. 193.]
AYES
[10.15 p.m.


Abse, Leo
Galpern, Sir Myer
Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert


Albu, Austen
Gilbert, Dr. John
Mendelson, John


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Ginsburg, David
Mikardo, Ian


Allen, Scholefield
Golding, John
Millan, Bruce


Archer, Peter (Rowley Regis)
Gourlay, Harry
Miller, Dr. M. S.


Armstrong, Ernest
Grant, George (Morpeth)
Milne, Edward (Blyth)


Ashley, Jack
Grant, John D. (Islington, E.)
Molloy, William


Ashton, Joe
Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside)
Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)


Atkinson, Norman
Griffiths, Will (Exchange)
Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)


Barnett, Joel
Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)
Morris, Rt. Hn. John (Aberavon)


Beaney, Alan
Hamling, William
Moyle, Roland


Bennett, James (Glasgow, Bridgeton)
Hannan, William (G'gow, Maryhill)
Mulley, Rt. Hn. Frederick


Bidwell, Sydney
Hardy, Peter
Murray, Ronald King


Bishop, E. S.
Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
Ogden, Eric


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Hart, Rt. Hn. Judith
O'Halloran, Michael


Boardman, H. (Leigh)
Hattersley, Roy
O'Malley, Brian



Booth, Albert
Heffer, Eric S.
Oram, Bert


Bradley, Tom
Hilton, W. S.
Orme, Stanley


Brown, Bob (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne,W.)
Horam, John
Oswald, Thomas


Brown, Hugh D. (G'gow, Provan)
Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, Sutton)


Brown, Ronald (Shoreditch &amp; F' bury)
Huckfield, Leslie
Paget, R. T.


Buchan, Norman
Hughes, Rt.Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey)
Palmer, Arthur


Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)
Hughes, Mark (Durham)
Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles


Callaghan, Rt. Hn. James
Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Parker, John (Dagenham)


Campbell, I. (Dunbartonshire, W.)
Hunter, Adam
Parry, Robert (Liverpool, Exchange)


Cant, R. B.
Irvine, Rt.Hn.SirArthur(Edge Hill)
Pavitt, Laurie


Carmichael, Neil
Janner, Greville
Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred


Carter, Ray (Birmingh'm, Northfield)
Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Pendry, Tom


Carter-Jones, Lewis (Eccles)
Jeger,Mrs.Lena(H'b'n&amp;St.P'cras,S.)
Pentland, Norman


Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara
Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)
Perry, Ernest G.


Clark, David (Colne Valley)
John, Brynmor
Prentice, Rt. Hn. Reg.


Cocks, Michael (Bristol, S.)
Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)
Prescott, John


Cohen, Stanley
Johnson, James (K'ston-on-Hull, W.)
Price, J T. (Westhoughton)


Concannon, J. D.
Johnson, Walter (Derby, S.)
Price, William (Rugby)


Conlan, Bernard
Jones, Barry (Flint, E.)
Probert, Arthur


Corbet, Mrs. Freda
Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Rankin, John


Cox, Thomas (Wandsworth, C.)
Jones,Rt.Hn.Sir Elwyn(W. Ham,S.)
Reed, D. (Sedgefield)


Crawshaw, Richard
Jones, Gwynoro (Carmarthen)
Rees, Merlyn (Leeds, S.)


Crosland, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Judd, Frank
Rhodes, Geoffrey


Crossman, Rt. Hn. Richard
Kaufman, Gerald
Richard, Ivor


Cunningham, G. (Islington, S.W.)
Kelley, Richard
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)


Dalyell, Tam
Kerr, Russell
Roberts, Rt. Hn. Goronwy(Caernarvon)


Darling, Rt. Hn. George
Kinnock, Neil
Robertson, John (Paisley)


Davidson, Arthur
Lambie, David
Roderick, Caerwyn E.(Br'c'n&amp;R'dno)


Davies, Denzil (Llanelly)
Latham, Arthur
Rogers, William (Stockton-on-Tees)


Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)
Lawson, George
Roper, John


Davies, S. O. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Leadbitter, Ted
Rose, Paul B.


Davis, Clinton (Hackney, C.)
Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick
Ross, Rt. Hn. William (Kilmarnock)


Deakins, Eric
Leonard, Dick
Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-under-Lyne


de Freitas, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey
Lestor, Miss Joan
Shore, Rt. Hn. Peter (Stepney)


Delargy, Hn. J.
Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham, N.)
Short,Rt.Hn,Edward(N'c'tle-u-Tyne)


Dell, Rt. Hn. Edmund
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Silkin, Hn. S. C. (Dulwich)


Dempsey, James
Lipton, Marcus
Sillars, James


Doig, Peter
Lomas, Kenneth
Silverman, Julius


Dormand, J. D.
Loughlin, Charles
Skinner, Dennis


Douglas, Dick (Stirlingshire, E.)
Lyon, Alexander W. (York)
Small, William


Douglas-Mann, Bruce
Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)
Smith, John (Lanarkshire, N.)


Driberg, Tom
Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson
Spearing, Nigel


Duffy, A. E. P.
McBride, Neil
Spriggs, Leslie


Dunn, James A.
McCartney, Hugh
Stallard, A. W.


Dunnett, James
McElhone, Frank
Stewart, Rt. Hn. Michael (Fulham)


Eadie, Alex
McGuire, Michael
Stoddart, David (Swindon)


Edwards, Robert (Bilston)
Mackenzie, Gregor
Storehouse, Rt. Hn. John


Edwards, William (Merioneth)
Mackie, John
Strang, Gavin


Ellis, Tom
Mackintosh, John P.
Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R.


English, Michael
Maclennan, Robert
Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley


Evans, Fred
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)
Swain, Thomas


Fernyhough, E.
McNamara, J. Kevin
Tavern, Dick


Fisher, Mrs.Doris(B'ham,Ladywood)
MacPherson, Malcolm
Thomas, Rt.Hn. George (Cardiff, W.)


Fitch, Alan (Wigan)
Mahon, Simon (Bootle)
Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)


Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield, E.)
Thomson, Rt. Hn. G. (Dundee, E.)


Foley, Maurice
Marks, Kenneth
Tinn, James


Ford, Benn
Marquand, David
Tomney, Frank


Forrester, John
Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy
Tuck, Raphael


Fraser, John (Norwood)
Mayhew, Christopher
Urwin, T. W.


Freeson, Reginald
Meacher, Michael
Variey, Eric G.

The Committee divided: Ayes 247, Noes 276.

Wainwright, Edwin
White, James (Glasgow, Pollok)
Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)


Walker, Harold (Doncaster)
Whitehead, Phillip
Wilson, Rt. Hn. Harold (Huyton)


Wallace, George
Whitlock, William
Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)


Watkins, David
Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick



Weitzman, David
Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Wellbeloved, James
Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)
Mr. Donald Coleman and


Wells, William (Walsall, N.)
Williams, W. T. (Warrington)
Mr. Joseph Harper.




NOES


Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)
Fookes, Miss Janet
Le Marchant, Spencer


Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)
Fortescue, Tim
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)


Astor, John
Fox, Marcus
Lloyd,Rt.Hn.Geoffrey(Sut'nC'dfield)


Atkins, Humphrey
Fry, Peter
Lloyd, Ian (P'tsm'th, Langstone)


Awdry, Daniel
Galbraith, Hn. T. G.
Longden, Gilbert


Baker, W. H. K. (Banff)
Gardner, Edward
Loveridge, John


Balniel, Lord
Gibson-Watt, David
MacArthur, Ian


Batsford, Brian
Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)
McCrindle, R. A.


Bell, Ronald
Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)
McLaren, Martin


Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torquay)
Glyn, Dr. Alan
Maclean, Sir Fitzroy


Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gosport)
Goodhart, Philip
McMaster, Stanley


Benyon, W.
Goodhew, Victor
Macmillan, Maurice (Farnham)


Berry, Hn. Anthony
Gorst, John
McNair-Wilson, Michael


Biffen, John
Gower, Raymond
McNair-Wilson, Patrick (New Forest)


Biggs-Davison, John
Grant, Anthony (Harrow, C.)
Maddan, Martin


Blaker, Peter
Gray, Hamish
Madel, David


Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S.W.)
Green, Alan
Maginnis, John E.


Body, Richard
Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)
Marples, Rt. Hn. Ernest


Boscawen, Robert
Grimond, Rt. Hn. J.
Marten, Neil


Bossom, Sir Clive
Grylls, Michael
Mather, Carol


Bowden, Andrew
Gummer, Selwyn
Maude, Angus


Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. John
Gurden, Harold
Maudling, Rt. Hn. Reginald


Braine, Bernard
Hall, Miss Joan (Keighley)
Mawby, Ray


Bray, Ronald
Hall, John (Wycombe)
Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.


Brewis, John
Hall-Davis, A. G. F.
Meyer, Sir Anthony


Brocklebank-Fowler, Christopher
Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
Mills, Peter (Torrington)


Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
Hannam, John (Exeter)
Mills, Stratton (Belfast, N.)


Bruce-Gardyne, J.
Harrison, Brian (Maldon)
Miscampbell, Norman


Bryan, Paul
Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere
Mitchell,Lt.-Col.C.(Aberdeenshire,W)


Buchanan-Smith, Alick (Angus,N&amp;M)
Haselhurst, Alan
Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)


Buck, Antony
Havers, Michael
Moate, Roger


Bullus, Sir Eric
Hawkins, Paul
Molyneaux, James


Butler, Adam (Bosworth)
Hay, John
Money, Ernie


Carlisle, Mark
Hayhoe, Barney
Monks, Mrs. Connie


Cary, Sir Robert
Heseltine, Michael
Montgomery, Fergus


Channon, Paul
Hicks, Robert
More, Jasper


Chapman, Sydney
Higgins, Terenece L.
Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh)


Chichester-Clark, R.
Hiley, Joseph
Morgan-Giles, Rear-Adm.


Churchill, W. S.
Hill, John E. B. (Norfolk, S.)
Mudd, David


Clark, William (Surrey, E.)
Hill, James (Southampton, Test)
Murton, Oscar


Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Holland, Philip
Nabarro, Sir Gerald


Cockeram, Eric
Holt, Miss Mary
Neave, Airey


Cooke, Robert
Hooson, Emlyn
Nicholls, Sir Harmar


Coombs, Derek
Hordern, Peter
Normanton, Tom


Cooper, A. E.
Hornby, Richard
Nott, John


Cormack, Patrick
Hornsby-Smith,Rt.Hn.Dame Patricia
Onslow, Cranley


Costain, A. P.
Howe, Hn. Sir Geoffrey (Reigate)
Oppenheim, Mrs. Sally


Critchley, Julian
Howell, David (Guildford)
Orr, Capt. L. P. S.


Crouch, David
Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, N.)
Osborn, John


Crowder, F. P.
Hunt, John
Owen, Idris (Stockport, N.)


Curran, Charles
Hutchison, Michael Clark
Page, John (Harrow, W.)


Dalkeith, Earl of
Iremonger, T. L.
Parkinson, Cecil (Enfield, W.)


d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry
James, David
Percival, Ian


d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Maj.-Gen. Jack
Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)
Pike, Miss Mervyn


Dean, Paul
Jessel, Toby
Pink, R. Bonner


Dighy, Simon Wingfield
Johnson Smith, G. (E. Grinstead)
Pounder, Rafton


Dodds-Parker, Douglas
Jopling, Michael
Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch


Drayson, G. B.
Kaberry, Sir Donald
Price, David (Eastleigh)


du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward
Kellett, Mrs. Elaine
Proudfoot, Wilfred


Dykes, Hugh
Kershaw, Anthony
Pym, Rt. Hn. Francis


Eden, Sir John
Kilfedder, James
Quennell, Miss J. M.


Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)
King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)
Raison, Timothy


Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)
King, Tom (Bridgwater)
Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James


Elliott, R. W. (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne,N.)
Kinsey, J. R.
Redmond, Robert


Emery, Peter
Kirk, Peter
Reed, Laurance (Bolton, E.)


Eyre, Reginald
Kitson, Timothy
Rees, Peter (Dover)


Farr, John
Knight, Mrs. Jill
Rees-Davies, W. R.


Fell, Anthony
Knox, David
Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David


Fenner, Mrs. Peggy
Lambton, Antony
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon


Finsberg, Geoffrey (Hampstead)
Lane, David
Ridley, Hn. Nicholas


Fisher, Nigel (Surbiton)
Langford-Holt, Sir John
Ridsdale, Julian


Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry
Rippon, Rt. Hn. Geoffrey







Roberts, Michael (Cardiff, N.)
Stodart, Anthony (Edinburgh, W.)
Walder David (Clitheroe)


Roberts, Wyn (Conway)
Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M.
Walker Rt. Hn. Peter (Worcester)


Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)
Stokes, John
Walker-Smith Rt. Hn. Sir Derek


Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)
Stuttaford, Dr. Tom
Wall, Patrick


Rost, Peter
Sutcliffe, John
Walters, Dennis


Royle, Anthony
Tapsell, Peter
Ward, Dame Irene


Russell, Sir Ronald
Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)
Warren, Kenneth


St. John-Stevas, Norman
Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)
Wells, John (Maidstone)


Scott-Hopkins, James
Taylor, Robert (Croydon, N.W.)
White, Roger (Gravesend)


Sharples, Richard
Tebbit, Norman
Wiggin, Jerry


Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh &amp; Whitby)
Temple, John M.
Wilkinson, John


Shelton, William (Clapham)
Thomas, John Stradling (Monmouth)
Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick


Simeons, Charles
Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon, S.)
Woodhouse, Hn. Christopher


Skeet, T. H. H.
Tilney, John
Woodnutt, Mark


Smith, Dudley (W'wick &amp; L'mington)
Trafford, Dr. Anthony
Worsley, Marcus


Soref, Harold
Trew, Peter
Wylie, Rt. Hn. N. R.


Speed, Keith
Tugendhat, Christopher
Younger, Hn. George


Spence, John
Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H.



Sproat, Ian
van Straubenzee, W. R.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Stainton, Keith
Vickers, Dame Joan
Mr. Bernard Wetherill and


Stanbrook, Ivor
Waddington, David
Mr. Walter Clegg.


Stewart-Smith, D. G. (Belper)

[MISS HARVIE ANDERSON in the Chair]

Mr. James A. Dunn: I beg to move Amendment No. 864, in page 82, line 39, after 'break', insert:
or otherwise interfere with'.

The Deputy Chairman: Order. I think that it would be for the convenience of the Committee to take at the same time Amendment No. 865, in line 41, after 'broken', insert:
or otherwise interfered with'.

Mr. Dunn: The Clause, like Clause 117, has its problems for those who are not specialists in legal jargon, who can find the going very difficult.
I wish to bring to the notice of the Solicitor-General and his colleagues certain points and to ask for special consideration to be given to the issues I shall raise now. My remarks will relate to both Amendments.
The Clause says that any intervention in an industrial dispute will be in violation of some of its principles. Many problems flow from that. Any interruption, any intervention, any sympathetic support could be classified as tort.
Dealing with Amendment No. 866, the Solicitor-General indicated with some clarity that the provisions of the Clause still make such tort actionable under certain circumstances. I take it that this would cover words, whether written or oral, or any action that could be classified as inducing, persuading or causing in any manner not only a breach of contract but an interruption of the contract acts which, while not specifically being interpreted as breaking the contract or interrupting it temporarily, constitute an offence by the very fact that persuasion is used.
I am sure that the hon. and learned Gentleman did not mean that this provision should be incorporated in the Bill. I have known him for some time. I often disagree with him, but I never doubt that his wish for good law has always been sacrosanct to him and that he would not wish to leave any dubiety resulting from words for which he may be held to be responsible.
I recall some of the things said about Clause 86, when we were trying to consider sympathetic action, secondary sympathetic action, embargoes, picketing and even protests. There was a clear answer from the hon. and learned Gentleman then that secondary actions were an offence unless the trade union concerned had decided to take action which could be classified as not unfair. But if the trade union or group of workers took any action which was not sanctioned by, or at the direction of, a registered trade union, they would be in default under the Bill.
10.30 p.m.
Under Clause 118, any expression of opinion in relation to secondary action, any boycott, any picketing, any combined action or even any individual action could be interpreted as sympathy and support. In these circumstances, I ask the hon. and learned Gentleman to look at the matter again. My judgment is based upon the Torquay hotel decision by Lord Denning. The advice given to me by people who know more about the matter than I is that anyone in breach in the way I have indicated would be held responsible under the law of tort. I know that this is not the intention and the Amendment would clarify the situation.

The Solicitor-General: I thank the hon. Member for Liverpool, Kirkdale (Mr. James A. Dunn) for the way in which he moved the Amendment. He has identified a point on which there may be room for reconsideration. The same point is made by Professor Wedderburn in his book, "The Worker and the Law", when he draws attention to the potential for extension of the law of tort deriving from Lord Denning's judgment.
The objective of Clause 118 is to exclude from the ordinary court proceedings in respect of inducing breach of contract or comparable things in the context of a trade dispute. If there are to be any remedies in respect of such matters, they are to be found under this Bill, under Clauses 85 to 87. That is where the Government intend the remedies to arise. We do not intend a fresh crop of unforeseeable remedies to arise in the ordinary courts in the law of tort, and that is what Clause 118 is designed to prevent.
In so far as it reproduces Section 3 of the 1906 Act, it would have been all right for that purpose, but the hon. Gentleman suggests—and this is the extent to which his point has force—that it may no longer be all right if interference with the performance of the provisions of a contract is to be the foundation of a new series of actions in the ordinary courts.
The Amendment might not present the right way of preventing a growth of that kind, but the hon. Gentleman has identified a problem which the Government want to look at again, the intention being to ensure that the Clause is a secure frontier in the ordinary courts in that the remedies, right or wrong, which the Goernment are putting forward in respect of unfair industrial actions should arise in the N.I.R.C. only.
In view of my statement that we shall look at the wording again with these two Amendments in mind but without any commitment to accepting any particular form of words in trying to improve the Clause to meet the point which could arise from the Torquay judgment, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will feel that his Amendment need not be pressed to a Division.

Mr. Dunn: I accept the hon. and learned Gentleman's assurance. I would like the matter to be looked at again.
I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. Rose: I beg to move Amendment No. 870, in page 83, line 1, leave out: 'For the avoidance of doubt'.

The Deputy Chairman: It may be for the convenience of the Committee if we also discuss Amendment No. 871, in page 83, line 4, after 'business', insert 'contract'.

Mr. Rose: As the Solicitor-General has understood the argument of my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Kirkdale (Mr. Dunn) about "otherwise interfered with", I hope that he will also understand the problem posed here by the words "for the avoidance of doubt" because of recent decision in Stratford v. Lindley and Rookes v. Barnard.
As we want to make progress tonight, I will not now go into detail, but the Solicitor-General will know that there

are 33 pages in the latest text book on the law in this regard. There is much doubt about the state of the law with regard to Section 3 and the protection offered. I hope that the hon. and learned Gentleman will be able to undertake that by Report he will have considered the implications of these two cases. I say no more than that now in view of his response to my hon. Friend.

The Solicitor-General: I cannot adopt such an immediately forthcoming attitude to these Amendments because, so far as I have been able to analyse their effect, they would go beyond merely preventing the development of new heads of tort liability and would go further than would be justified. The hon. Member has moved the Amendment very briefly and I make no complaint of that. but he has not fully expounded the effect and I may not fully appreciate it. I shall certainly look at it, but I cannot show anything like the same kind of implied willingness to make any change on these lines, because the argument may not be as valid as the hon. Member thinks.
Certainly I will consider his suggestion, but at the moment I do not think that it is likely to lead to any change in the position. However, he may feel satisfied that he has drawn my attention to it and it will deserve scrutiny on that ground alone.

Mr. Rose: I am obliged to the hon. and learned Gentleman. I have drawn his attention to the matter. I am sure that he will look at the decisions and some of the dicta in these two cases and draw certain conclusions about the uncertainty in the law. As the Report stage will give us an opportunity to debate the matter, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 118 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 119

NO PROCEEDINGS IN TORT BEFORE INDUSTRIAL COURT

Question put, That the Clause stand part of the Bill:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 278, Noes 251.

Division No. 194.]
AYES
[10.35 p.m.


Alison, Michael (Bankston Ash)
Glyn, Dr. Alan
Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.


Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)
Goodhart, Philip
Meyer, Sir Anthony


Astor, John
Gorst, John
Mills, Peter (Torrington)


Atkins, Humphrey
Gower, Raymond
Mills, Stratton (Belfast, N.)


Awdry, Daniel
Grant, Anthony (Harrow, C.)
Miscampbell, Norman


Baker, Kenneth (St. Marylebone)
Gray, Hamish
Mitchell,Lt.-Col.C.(Aberdeenshire,W.)


Baker, W. H. K. (Banff)
Green, Alan
Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)


Balniel, Lord
Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)
Moate, Roger


Batsford, Brian
Grimond, Rt. Hn. J.
Molyneaux, James


Bell, Ronald
Grylls, Michael
Money, Ernie


Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torquay)
Gummer, Selwyn
Monks, Mrs. Connie


Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gosport)
Gurden, Harold
Montgomery, Fergus


Benyon, W.
Hall, Miss Joan (Keighley)
More, Jasper


Berry, Hn. Anthony
Hall, John (Wycombe)
Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh)


Biffen, John
Hall-Davis, A. G. F.
Morgan-Giles, Rear-Adm.


Biggs-Davison, John
Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
Mudd, David


Blaker, Peter
Hannam, John (Exeter)
Murton, Oscar


Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S.W.)
Harrison, Brian (Maldon)
Nabarro, Sir Gerald


Body, Richard
Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere
Neave, Airey


Boscawen, Robert
Haselhurst, Alan
Nicholls, Sir Harmar


Bossom, Sir Clive
Havers, Michael
Normanton, Tom


Bowden, Andrew
Hawkins, Paul
Nott, John


Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. John
Hay, John
Onslow, Cranley


Braine, Bernard
Hayhoe, Barney
Oppenheim, Mrs. Sally


Bray, Ronald
Heseltine, Michael
Orr, Capt. L. P. S.


Brewis, John
Hicks, Robert
Osborn, John


Blocklebank-Fowler, Christopher
Higgins, Terence L.
Owen, Idris (Stockport, N.)


Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
Hiley, Joseph
Page, John (Harrow, W.)


Bruce-Gardyne, J.
Hill, John E. B. (Norfolk, S.)
Parkinson, Cecil (Enfield, W.)


Bryan, Paul
Hill, James (Southampton, Test)
Percival, Ian


Buchanan-Smith, Alick(Angus,N&amp;M)
Holland, Philip
Pike, Miss Mervyn


Buck, Antony
Holt, Miss Mary
Pink, R. Bonner


Bullus, Sir Eric
Hordern, Peter
Pounder, Rafton


Butler, Adam (Bosworth)
Hornby, Richard
Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch


Carlisle, Mark
Hornsby-Smith,Rt.Hn.Dame Patricia
Price, David (Eastleigh)


Cary, Sir Robert
Howe, Hn. Sir Geoffrey (Reigate)
Proudfoot, Wilfred


Channon, Paul
Howell, David (Guildford)
Pym, Rt. Hn. Francis


Chapman, Sydney
Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, N.)
Quennell, Miss J. M.


Chichester-Clark, R.
Hunt, John
Raison, Timothy


Churchill, W. S.
Hutchison, Michael Clark
Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James


Clark, William (Surrey, E.)
Iremonger, T. L.
Redmond, Robert


Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
James, David
Reed, Laurence (Bolton, E.)


Clegg, Walter
Jerkin, Patrick (Woodford)
Rees, Peter (Dover)


Cockeram, Eric
Jessel, Toby
Rees-Davies, W. R.


Cooke, Robert
Johnson Smith, G. (E. Grinstead)
Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David


Coombs, Derek
Jopling, Michael
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon


Cooper, A. E.
Kaberry, Sir Donald
Ridley, Hn. Nicholas


Cormack, Patrick
Kellett, Mrs. Elaine
Ridsdale, Julian


Costain, A. P.
Kershaw, Anthony
Rippon, Rt. Hn. Geoffrey


Critchley, Julian
Kilfedder, James
Roberts, Michael (Cardiff, N.)


Crouch, David
King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)
Roberts, Wyn (Conway)


Crowder, F. P.
King, Tom (Bridgwater)
Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)


Curran, Charles
Kinsey, J. R.
Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)


Dalkeith, Earl of
Kirk, Peter
Rost, Peter


d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry
Kitson, Timothy
Royle, Anthony


d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Maj.-Gen. Jack
Knight, Mrs. Jill
Russell, Sir Ronald


Dean, Paul
Knox, David
St. John-Stevas, Norman


Digby, Simon Wingfield
Lambton, Antony
Scott, Nicholas


Dodds-Parker, Douglas
Lane, David
Scott-Hopkins, James


Drayson, G. B.
Langford-Holt, Sir John
Sharpies, Richard


du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward
Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry
Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh &amp; Whitby)


Dykes, Hugh
Le Marchant, Spencer
Shelton, William (Clapham)


Eden, Sir John
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Simeons, Charles


Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Lloyd,Rt.Hn.Geoffrey(Sut'nC'dfield)
Skeet, T. H. H.


Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)
Lloyd, Ian (P'tsm'th, Langstone)
Smith, Dudley (W'wick &amp; L'mington)


Elliott, R. W. (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne,N.)
Longden, Gilbert
Soref, Harold


Emery, Peter
Loveridge, John
Speed, Keith


Farr, John
MacArthur, Ian
Spence, John


Fell, Anthony
McCrindle, R. A.
Sproat, Iain


Fenner, Mrs. Peggy
McLaren, Martin
Stainton, Keith


Finsberg, Geoffrey (Hampstead)
Maclean, Sir Fitzroy
Stanbrook, Ivor


Fisher, Nigel (Surbiton)
Macmillan, Maurice (Farnham)
Stewart-Smith, D. G. (Belper)


Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
McNair-Wilson, Michael
Stodart, Anthony (Edinburgh, W.)


Fookes, Miss Janet
McNair-Wilson, Patrick (New Forest)
Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M.


Fortescue, Tim
Maddan, Martin
Stokes, John


Fox, Marcus
Madel, David
Stuttaford, Dr. Tom


Fraser,Rt.Hn.Hugh(St'fford &amp; Stone)
Maginnis, John E.
Sutcliffe, John


Fry, Peter
Marples, Rt. Hn. Ernest
Tapsell, Peter


Galbraith, Hn. T. G.
Marten, Neil
Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)


Gardner, Edward
Mather, Carol
Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)


Gibson-Watt, David
Maude, Angus
Taylor, Robert (Croydon, N.W.)


Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)
Maudling, Rt. Hn. Reginald
Tebbit, Norman


Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)
Mawby, Ray
Temple, John M.







Thomas, John Stradling (Monmouth)
Walder, David (Clitheroe)
Wilkinson, John


Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon, S.)
Walker, Rt. Hn. Peter (Worcester)
Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick


Tilney, John
Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek
Woodhouse, Hn. Christopher


Trafford, Dr. Anthony
Wall, Patrick
Woodnutt, Mark


Trew, Peter
Walters, Dennis
Worsley, Marcus


Tugendhat, Christopher
Ward, Dame Irene
Wylie, Rt. Hn. N. R.


Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H.
Warren, Kenneth
Younger, Hn. George


van Straubenzee, W. R.
Weatherill, Bernard



Vaughan, Dr. Gerard
Wells, John (Maidstone)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Vickers, Dame Joan
White, Roger (Gravesend)
Mr Reginald Eyre and


Waddington, David
Wiggin, Jerry
Mr Victor Goodhew.




NOES


Abse, Leo
Fernyhough, Rt. Hn. E.
McBride, Neil


Albu, Austen
Fisher, Mrs. Doris(B'ham,Ladywood)
McCartney, Hugh


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Fitch, Alan (Wigan)
McElhone, Frank


Allen, Scholefield
Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
McGuire, Michael


Archer, Peter (Rowley Regis)
Foley, Maurice
Mackenzie, Gregor


Ashley, Jack
Foot, Michael
Mackie, John


Ashton, Joe
Ford, Ben
Mackintosh, John P.


Atkinson, Norman
Forrester, John
Maclennan, Robert


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Fraser, John (Norwood)
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)


Barnes, Michael
Freeson, Reginald
McNamara, J. Kevin


Barnett, Joel
Galpern, Sir Myer
MacPherson, Malcolm


Beaney, Alan
Garrett, W. E.
Mahon, Simon (Bootle)


Bennett, James (Glasgow, Bridgeton)
Gilbert, Dr. John
Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield, E.)


Bidwell, Sydney
Ginsburg, David
Marks, Kenneth


Bishop, E. S.
Golding, John
Marquand, David


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Gourlay, Harry
Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy


Boardman, H. (Leigh)
Grant, George (Morpeth)
Meacher, Michael


Booth, Albert
Grant, John D. (Islington, E.)
Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert


Bradley, Tom
Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside)
Mendelson, John


Brown, Bob (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne,W.)
Griffiths, Will (Exchange)
Mikardo, Ian


Brown, Hugh D. (G'gow, Provan)
Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
Millan, Bruce


Brown, Ronald (Shoreditch &amp; F'bury)
Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)
Miller, Dr. M. S.


Buchan, Norman
Hamling, William
Milne, Edward (Blyth)


Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)
Hannan, William (G'gow, Maryhill)
Molloy, William


Callaghan, Rt. Hn. James
Hardy, Peter
Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)


Campbell, I.(Dunbartonshire, W.)
Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)


Cant, R. B.
Hart, Rt. Hn. Judith
Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)


Carmichael, Neil
Hattersley, Roy
Morris, Rt. Hn. John (Aberavon)


Carter, Ray (Birmingh'm, Northfield)
Heffer, Eric S.
Moyle, Roland


Carter-Jones, Lewis (Eccles)
Hilton, W. S.
Mulley, Rt. Hn. Frederick


Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara
Horam, John
Murray, Ronald King


Clark, David (Colne Valley)
Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Ogden, Eric


Cocks, Michael (Bristol, S.)
Huckfield, Leslie
O'Halloran, Michael


Cohen, Stanley
Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey)
O'Malley, Brian


Coleman, Donald
Hughes, Mark (Durham)
Oram, Bert


Concannon, J. D.
Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Orme, Stanley


Conlan, Bernard
Hunter, Adam
Oswald, Thomas


Corbet, Mrs. Freda
Irvine,Rt.Hn.SirArthur(Edge Hill)
Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, Sutton)


Cox, Thomas (Wandsworth, C.)
Janner, Greville
Palmer, Arthur


Crawshaw, Richard
Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles


Crosland, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Jeger,Mrs.Lena(H'b'n&amp;St.P'cras,S.)
Parker, John (Dagenham)


Crossman, Rt. Hn. Richard
Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)
Parry, Robert (Liverpool, Exchange)


Cunningham, G. (Islington, S.W.)
John, Brynmor
Pavitt, Laurie


Dalyell, Tam
Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)
Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred


Darling, Rt. Hn. George
Johnson, James (K'ston-on-Hull, W.)
Pendry, Tom


Davidson, Arthur
Johnson, Walter (Derby, S.)
Pentland, Norman


Davies, Denzil (Llanelli)
Jones, Barry (Flint, E.)
Perry, Ernest G.


Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)
Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Prentice, Rt. Hn. Reg.


Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Jones,Rt.Hn.Sir Elwyn(W.Ham,S.)
Prescott, John


Davies, S. O. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Jones,Gwynoro (Carmarthen)
Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)


Davis, Clinton (Hackney, C.)
Judd, Frank
Price, William (Rugby)


Deakins, Eric
Kaufman, Gerald
Probert, Arthur


de Freitas, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey
Kelley, Richard
Rankin, John


Delargy, H. J.
Kerr, Russell
Reed, D. (Sedgefield)


Dell, Rt. Hn, Edmund
Kinnock, Neil
Rees, Merlyn (Leeds, S.)


Dempsey, James
Lambie, David
Rhodes, Geoffrey


Doig, Peter
Latham, Arthur
Richard, Ivor


Dormand, J. D.
Lawson, George
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)


Douglas, Dick (Stirlingshire, E.)
Leadbitter, Ted
Roberts, Rt. Hn.Goronwy(Caernarvon)


Douglas-Mann, Bruce
Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick
Robertson, John (Paisley)


Driberg, Tom
Leonard, Dick
Roderick, Caerwyn E.(Br'c'n&amp;R'dnor)


Duffy, A. E. P.
Lestor, Miss Joan
Rodgers, William (Stockton-on-Tees)


Dunn, James A.
Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham, N.)
Roper, John


Dunnett, Jack
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Rose, Paul B.


Eadie, Alex
Lipton, Marcus
Ross, Rt. Hn. William (Kilmarnock)


Edwards, Robert (Bilston)
Lomas, Kenneth
Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-under-Lyne)


Edwards, William (Merioneth)
Loughlin, Charles
Shore, Rt, Hn. Peter (Stepney)


Ellis, Tom
Lyon, Alexander W. (York)
Short,Rt.Hn.Edward(N'c'tle-u-Tyne)


English, Michael
Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)
Short, Mrs. Renée (W'hampton,N.E.)


Evans, Fred
Mabon, Dr. J, Dickson
Silkin, Hn. S. C. (Dulwich)







Sillars, James
Taverne, Dick
Wells, William (Walsall, N.)


Silverman, Julius
Thomas,Rt.Hn.George (Cardiff,W.)
White, James (Glasgow, Pollok)


Skinner, Dennis
Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)
Whitehead, Philip


Smail, William
Thomson, Rt. Hn. G. (Dundee, E.)
Whitlock, William


Smith, John (Lanarkshire, N.)
Tinn, James
Willey Rt. Hn. Frederick


Spearing, Nigel
Tomney, Frank
Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)


Spriggs, Leslie
Tuck, Raphael
Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)


Stallard, A. W.
Urwin, T. W.
Williams, W. T. (Warrington)


Stewart, Rt. Hn. Michael (Fulham)
Varley, Eric G.
Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)


Stoddart, David (Swindon)
Wainwright, Edwin
Wilson, Rt. Hn. Harold (Huyton)


Stonehouse, Rt. Hn. John
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)
Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)


Strang, Gavin
Wallace, George



Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R.
Watkins, David
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley
Weitzman, David
Mr Joseph Harper and


Swain, Thomas
Wellbeloved, James
Mr Ernest Armstrong.

Clause 119 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 120

GAS, WATER AND ELECTRICITY WORKERS

Question proposed, That the Clause stand part of the Bill.

Mr. McNamara: One of the Government's arguments in support of the Bill is that this Clause is one of the great liberating Clauses which suddenly lifts from the shoulders of people in the electricity supply, gas and water industries some of the penalties which they have borne as a result of the Conspiracy and Protection of Property Act, 1875.
It used to be argued that everybody except workers in these key industries, public utilities, were able to go on strike. One can only assume that the power workers' go-slow and other industrial actions have shown the foolishness of this provision in that it could not stop effective industrial action, and the Government, therefore, have lifted the burden from these workpeople.
Although the Government have withdrawn Section 4 of the 1875 Act, they have not withdrawn Section 5, which is equally damaging, in that it creates a special offence where the general law already creates an offence, so that a person can be liable under the ordinary law of the land and also liable under Section 5 within the scope of being a trade unionist and breaking a contract. Section 5 states:
Where any person wilfully and maliciously breaks a contract of service or of hiring, knowing or having reasonable cause to believe that the probable consequences of his so doing, either alone or in combination with others …
a number of combinations of serious offences result from that action.
The gravamen of our argument is that if we are repealing Section 4 we should

repeal also Section 5, because much of what is contained in Section 5 will already be covered in the emergency procedures laid down in the Bill. If the Government are claiming to lift the burden, they should lift the whole burden and leave the person open only to the law of the land.
Let us see how far the Government's claim to lift the burden from workers is fulfilled. My hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) spoke about the problems facing the trade union officials dealing with the Merchant Marine and the National Union of Seamen. I should like to look at the ordinary trawlerman on a trawler sailing out of Hull or any other fishing port, and to deal with the problem which engaged the last Parliament on the Merchant Shipping Bill.
Although the Government say that they are lifting from the shoulders of workpeople many of the penalties of going on strike, they are not lifting the penalties from the important group of workpeople organised by my trade union. For example, under the law as it stands, a person on breaking his contract of service could be "done" by his skipper, "done" by the industry, and "done" under the Merchant Shipping Act, and in the end "done" under the Industrial Relations Bill. By "done" I mean that he may be subject to a variety of penalties, all for the same act.
I urge the Solicitor-General to look seriously at the broad offence of this Clause, to take the logic of the Clause right through and abolish Section 5 of the 1875 Act, and to do away with all penal Clauses so far as they affect trawler-men and seamen. There would then be no distinction between the way in which trawlermen and seamen on the one hand and ordinary workers on the other hand are treated.

The Solicitor-General: I shall not follow the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) into the territory of the Merchant Shipping Act, primarily because I suspect it would be out of order to do so on the Question, That the Clause stand part of the Bill, but also because that legislation was considered last year.
The hon. Member for Doncaster (Mr. Harold Walker) said on 11th March, 1970, that the surviving provisions
… run parallel with the situation in most other countries. It is my understanding that, when the Bill has been enacted"—
he was referring to the Merchant Shipping Bill—
our provisions will probably be more liberal than those of almost any other country, and certainly less rigorous."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 11 th March, 1970; Vol. 797, c. 1420.]

Mr. McNamara: I am aware that my hon. Friend said that, but that was not accepted by me or by my trade union. As to whether they are more liberal or less liberal, I would say that they are still illiberal.

The Solicitor-General: I appreciate that, but they were so described by the hon. Member for Doncaster a little under 12 months ago. The present Government have also renewed the undertaking to see how the provisions work after a period of years, and in the context of that Act so recently on the Statute Book the matter has been taken as far as it can be.

Mr. Harold Walker: We must get this right, and I am sure that the hon. and learned Gentleman does not want to do me an injustice or to distort the situation. He no doubt has accurately quoted me, but I hope he will turn his eyes to the latter part of that speech where I made it clear that, in spite of all I had said in defence of the then Government's position, none the less we would be sympathetic as a Government to the views of the industry if it wanted to go along the road then suggested by a number of my hon. Friends, particularly my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, North.

The Solicitor-General: I am sure the hon. Gentleman is accurately summarising the effect of what he said. That was the position as it emerged on 11 th March last year. I believe I am right in saying

—this is taking me outside not only the rules of order on this Clause, but outside the extent of my detailed knowledge—that the Act is not yet in force in all respects.

Mr. Harold Walker: There are no regulations.

The Solicitor-General: No regulations have been made under it and it is not yet in force. Therefore, it is a little early to press for a review of that which was brought in only last year.

Mr. McNamara: I did not accept it then and I do not now.

The Solicitor-General: I appreciate that the hon. Gentleman did not accept it then and does not now; he has made that clear. I think I have followed the matter far enough in the context of this debate.
The general proposition on this Clause is to reduce as far as possible the impact of the criminal law in industrial relations. The Donovan Commission, on balance, inclined against the repeal of Sections 4 and 5 of the 1875 Act because it thought they had a marginal deterrent effect. The Government feel that it is only in the special and rather more serious case in regard to Section 5 of the 1875 Act that there is any case for not disturbing that one area of the criminal law. There is no special reason in the more complex and sophisticated conditions of modern society for protection of the gas, electricity and water industries as provided in Section 4, but it is felt that Section 5 should survive, which is where any person
… wilfully … breaks a contract of service or of hiring, knowing or having reasonable cause to believe that the probable consequences of his so doing, either alone or in combination with others, will be to endanger human life, or cause serious bodily injury, or to expose valuable property … to destruction or serious injury …".
To that extent we accept the Donovan Commission's recommendations that that should remain on the Statute Book. I make plain that that does not apply only to somebody working under a contract of employment or only to the trade union or trade union members. It applies to anyone who wilfully or maliciously breaks a contract of service or of hiring. Anyone, employed or not, can avoid the risk of prosecution under Section 5 by giving due notice to determine his contract.
We have moved further than the Donovan Commission suggested, and, I think, as far as is right and sensible within the context of the 1875 Act and this Bill, to reduce the impact of the criminal law as we believe that it would be right to do.

11 p.m.

Mrs. Castle: None the less, it is important to place on record that, contrary to the impression that the Government have been anxious to give in their somewhat generalised public statements, they are not removing the criminal law entirely from any consideration of industrial relations. As Donovan points out, Section 5 of the 1875 Act, which the Government are not repealing, imposes criminal liability over a wider area than Section 4. Persons who are not covered by Section 4, as Donovan points out, might well be within Section 5, and the Report takes instances from Citrine's "Trade Union Law" suggesting that people who might be covered by Section 5 include drivers, signal men, pilots, surgeons, hospital staff, sewage workers, haulage contractors, and so on. This wide and far-reaching Section is being retained by the Government and, therefore, the Government are retaining criminal liability in their Bill.

Mr. Tom King: The right hon. Lady did not reach the sentence in the Donovan Report which might be said to underline so much of what has been said by my right hon. and hon. Friends about the framework of law that we are seeking to set up without continually drawing attention to the sanctions involved. The right hon. Lady referred to what Donovan said about the criminal law which has been in existence since 1875. However, the Report goes on:
So far as we are aware, however, there has not yet been a prosecution for an offence under this section.

Mrs. Castle: I am aware of that, but, broadly speaking, that could apply to Section 4 as well. We have had an interesting example recently where Section 4, which the Government are making such a virtue of repealing, might well have been considered to apply. I refer to the recent power workers' go-slow. As the Report of the Wilberforce Court of Inquiry makes clear, the employers in that case claimed that the

employees were in breach of their rules and, therefore, in breach of their contract of employment. Although a criminal action lay against the power workers and although there was a great outcry against the inconvenience and harm being caused by the go-slow, there was never any suggestion that the employers should apply Section 4. They did not apply it because they knew that what they wanted was not a criminal action but a settlement.
The Government are making a great virtue out of very little, and the principle that I have suggested remains intact, namely, that the Government are retaining an element of criminal liability in this Clause.

The Solicitor-General: But it is right to acknowledge that neither the Donovan Commission nor, I understand, the right hon. Lady proposed to alter either Section 4 or Section 5. We are retaining a very limited half of existing criminal liability for cases where serious injury is threatened, and we accept that Section 4 should go. The reality of the matter is that we have decided on withdrawal to the full extent that we think right.

Mrs. Castle: In other words, the hon. and learned Gentleman retains criminal liability where he thinks that it might be of use. That is the simple matter of principle involved.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 120 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 121

PEACEFUL PICKETING

Mr. Harold Walker: I beg to move Amendment No. 873, in page 83, line 37, leave out:
'not being a place where he resides'.
We come now to a Clause which, I think, signals the introduction of a significant change in the law concerning picketing. The words which we seek to have deleted make unlawful a concept which has been legal for certainly the whole of this century. This is a major, far-reaching and inexplicable change which the Government are seeking to introduce. Therefore, the onus for explaining it—we have not so far had one word of explanation—rests with the Government. It is for them to justify this change and


to tell us what new circumstances have arisen which require it.
Picketing has undergone changes in practice in recent years which are contrary to the direction implied in the proposed change in the law. I am prepared to acknowledge that in one or two exceptional instances picketing has been practised with perhaps an excess of robustness. But generally picketing has been practised with perhaps an excess of robustness in recent years than when the 1906 Act laid down what has now been the foundation of the law concerning peaceful picketing for more than half a century.
It is for the Solicitor-General to explain what new circumstances have arisen to justify this deliberate change in the law, which is not inconsistent with the general approach of the Bill, which is designed to weaken the strength of organised workers and to blunt the edge of the only weapon which they have in industrial relations—the strike weapon. It is a change, moreover, which defies—indeed, reverses—the express and deliberate will of Parliament exemplified in the Trades Disputes Act, 1906, which specifically included provisions which the Solicitor-General is now seeking to wipe out after a lengthy and exhaustive assessment of the practice in circumstances in which picketing was conducted with more vigour than today.
Furthermore, it is a change in the law which, despite all that the Solicitor-General, the Secretary of State, the Prime Minister and their roving band of propagandists up and down the country have been proclaiming—

Mr. McNamara: Peripatetic prophets.

Mr. Walker: My hon. Friend describes them as "peripatetic prophets". I am not sure that "prophets" is appropriate. Perhaps "pharisees" would be more relevant. They have made a great virtue of arguing that their proposals are consistent with, not to say based upon, the Royal Commission's recommendations. But time and again we have pointed out that the contrary is the case. In the light of earlier discussions today when we were accused of confusing the public and trade unionists, it strikes me as an extraordinary charge in view of the difficulty which the Solicitor-General has had in reconciling

so many of his proposals with the Royal Commission's recommendations.
We find here yet another defiance of the views of the Royal Commission. Paragraph 877 of the Report states:
The majority of members consider that the Commission has had no evidence of abuse of the right to picket sufficient to justify such a restriction.
It is important to point out here that the restriction referred to is precisely that which the Solicitor-General has put in the Bill, and which we seek to reject. The Commission sat for three years and had evidence submitted to it from a great range of organisations and from literally scores of individuals, all of whom are deeply involved in the day-to-day practice of industrial relations. None of them could find any evidence on which to base what the hon. and learned Gentleman has put in. It seems that he has found out what the Royal Commission could not discover. We shall look forward to seeing how he has triumphed over the labours of the Commission.
But, in order to be fair to the hon. and learned Gentleman, it should be said that four members out of the 12 came to a contrary view, and felt that picketing should not be allowed at a person's home when that place was not also his place of work. It is interesting to read their reasons for coming to that conclusion. They said:
They consider that in such cases it is quite unnecessary: information can be peaceably communicated or sought by post.
In the context of the current industrial relations situation those words have a rather ironic ring about them, to put it at its most moderate. I could not help wondering, when I understood that the reason for the Secretary of State's absence was that he was having discussions with the General Secretary of the Union of Postal Workers, if those discussions should bear fruit, as we all hope they will, and the General Secretary feels it necessary to communicate to his members the agreement reached so that the members might form some view of the agreement, just what would have happened had this Bill been an Act of Parliament. The answer is that such an action would, under the Solicitor-General's proposal, be an offence.

The Under-Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. Dudley Smith): The hon. Gentleman said, quite rightly, that four


members of the Royal Commission dissented from the majority view. One of them was Lord Donovan himself.

Mr. Walker: I hope the hon. Gentleman is not seeking to elevate Lord Donovan into something more than I understood him to be—primus inter pares. If it is suggested that Lord Donovan's views should be held to be paramount, the Government should rewrite the Bill. Hon. Members opposite like to select pieces from the Report when it suits them, but do not hesitate to ignore completely the views of Lord Donovan when the contrary is the case.

Mr. Michael Grylls: Instead of being selective himself, would the hon. Gentleman read the next two sentences in that quotation?

Mr. Walker: If hon. Members opposite want to keep throwing clay ducks in the air, I am willing to keep potting away with either barrel. Paragraph 876 reads:
The liberty to picket a person's home involves the risk of threats to his family which are quite unjustifiable, and may cause much distress.
The important point is that that sentence speaks of the risk involved, but so far as I am aware, nowhere in the Report or in the evidence submitted—and I have probably gone through the evidence as thoroughly as any hon. Member here—is there anything to tell us that people have in recent years been exposed to that kind of situation.
11.15 a.m.
The Solicitor-General may cite an example, but I cannot think of any example. I can think of examples of robust picketing in areas other than a person's home, but that is not what the Solicitor-General is tilting at. It is not in that area of the law relating to picketing that the Solicitor-General proposes to bring about changes. It is that part of the law that Parliament deliberately wrote into the 1906 Act, at a time when picketing was conducted in a much more violent fashion than anything we have seen in recent years and when Parliament, having carefully considered the practice, deliberately removed the restrictions in this area of the law on picketing that had been written into the Conspiracy, and Protection of Property Act, 1875.
The Government are not only reversing the decision of Parliament taken in 1906, but they are making the position of the law more restrictive—not only more restrictive than it was pre-1906 but even more restrictive than it was pre-1875. We are driven to the conclusion that this provision, like so many other features of the Bill, is designed deliberately to diminish the power of the worker and his organisations and to blunt—to put it at its best—the only weapons available to workers. This makes a mockery of the Government's declared intention that the Bill is designed to strengthen the unions. This is yet another onerous restriction against the unions which we shall vote against, unless we can be given a justification for this dramatic and far-reaching change in the law.

Mr. Percival: Such huffing and puffing does nothing to enhance the future of the cause which the hon. Member for Doncaster (Mr. Harold Walker) seeks to advocate. The hon. Gentleman used two phrases that stuck in my mind. One was that the inclusion of the words
not being a place where he resides
was designed to weaken trade unions. The hon. Gentleman concluded by saying that this provision was designed to diminish the power of the workers.
Heavens above, does the great trade union movement need to be able to besiege a man in his own home? Are not there some moments when a man can live his own life free, not only of interference from the Government, but free also of interference from his own union if he does not want it? This question should be seen in its true proportions.
Under the Clause a union is free to picket in all the ways in which it has picketed in the past
at or near—

(a) a place where a person works…
(b) any other place where a person happens to be".
The only place where a union cannot picket is at
a place where he resides".
I beg the Committee to come down to earth and realise that some things may be legitimate for a man's protection and that it is nonsense in this context to describe this as a Measure designed to weaken trade unions.

Mr. John Page: The hon. Member for Doncaster (Mr. Harold Walker) discussed paragraph 876 of the Donovan Report, in which Lord Donovan, Lord Robens and two others—that is, a third of the members of the Commission—thought that the picketing of people's homes should not be allowed. The hon. Gentleman made a meal of the business of information being communicated peaceably. Nothing in the Bill would stop a person leaving a letter or speaking to someone in his home, but "picketing" has a continuing atmosphere. I should have thought that, if a picket could get to someone's home, so could a fellow worker with a message. So that part of his argument falls.
The hon. Gentleman also said that there had been no change of circumstances in recent years. I should have thought that hon. Members would agree that there has been a change of circumstance in the amount of increasing violence which is generally evident in the life of our country. That is another reason why the Amendment should be opposed.
In paragraph 876, the Commission said:
No doubt such threats are a breach of the law, but the victims are unlikely in most cases to bring proceedings.

Mr. Murray: The hon. Gentleman has just made a very serious charge about increasing violence in the industrial field. Can he now substantiate this charge?

Mr. Page: I specifically said that there is increasing violence in the country as a whole—

Mr. Orme: Do not blame the unions.

Mr. Page: I think that people are more nervous nowadays about opening their front doors after dark than they were 60 years ago—

Mr. Alex Eadie: What has this to do with the unions?

Mr. Page: That picketing of a person's home means that individual colleagues of a worker can station themselves outside his home. That is what picketing means—[Interruption.]—

Mr. James Scott-Hopkins: They really do not like it, do they?

Mr. Orme: Would the hon. Gentleman give away?

Mr. Page: No. I have quoted where the Donovan Report said that victims are unlikely in most cases to bring proceedings—

Mr. Orme: Can I give an instance?

Mr. Page: All of us dislike having our wives and families involved in political difficulties. It is one of the hardships which a Member's family has to accept—[Interruption.] I believe that, by exactly the same coin—

Mr. Orme: What is he talking about?

Mr. Page: —it is wrong for people's wives and families to be involved in the same kind of industrial problems. So I hope that the Committee will oppose the Amendment.

Mr. Harold Walker: Would the hon. Gentleman address his final remarks not to the point about violence—he and his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Southport (Mr. Percival) have still to give examples of that—but to the fact that the Bill not merely restricts violence, which is already restricted by the law, but prevents anyone going to another's home
… in contemplation or furtherance of an industrial dispute… for the purpose of peacefully obtaining… or peacefully communicating information…
In other words, it is not just the violence but the peaceful action which is prevented.

Mr. Page: If I had not already sat down, I would say to the hon. Gentleman that it was he himself who referred to the fact that there was less robustness nowadays in picketing of this kind. At this time of growing violence in general, people's homes and families should be left out of it.

Mr. Percival: As reference has been made to me, I wish to make it clear that I did not make violence a part of my argument. Without violence, it is an intrusion of privacy which should not be allowed, and I therefore cannot believe it necessary for this great movement to have this power.

Mr. Nicholas Scott: The hon. Member for Doncaster (Mr. Harold Walker) did not provide


one example or argument in favour of retaining this right. Why should the trade unions regard it as essential in 1971 to have the right to picket a man's home? While there is not much danger from the possibility of violent picketing, the privacy argument carries much weight, and even in terms of the simple communication of information, the language used in a picket line for communicating information may be acceptable on the shop floor, but might be frightening in the context of a man's home, which may be occupied by his wife and family. [Interruption.] It is not only the language that might be frightening to them. It is also the atmosphere in which it might be used. If hon. Gentlemen opposite claim that this would be an onerous restriction on trade unions in 1971, the burden of proof must rest very much on them to show why this power is necessary.

Mr. Orme: Although hon. Gentlemen opposite have indulged in emotive talk on this subject, they have not given one example of the type of provocation to which the hon. Member for Paddington, South (Mr. Scott) referred. Donovan examined this matter in depth and firmly stated that the law did not need changing.
Hon. Gentleman opposite have asked us to give examples, and I will give an example of a court case which arose from picketing. I refer to the now famous Roberts Arundel dispute. In that case the people who had to make restitution to the pickets were the Stockport police. Compensation was paid by the police for violence carried out on certain strikers, who proved their case at common law and were awarded damages against the police. [Interruption.] It was at their place of work. It is all very well for hon. Gentlemen opposite to talk generally about violence in our society. I am talking about violence arising out of an industrial dispute.

Mr. Heffer: For the record, in the Roberts Arundel dispute the men were beaten up at the police station.

Mr. Orme: In other words, they were taken into custody, and then the violence occurred.
There is little evidence of violence taking place during picketing. I agree

that sometimes tempers run high. Frequently employers act in a provocative way; for example, by declaring that the premises are open for employees who wish to come to work, by encouraging employees to work and by erecting provocative notices. We remember what happened recently at Pilkingtons, but there was no violence or picketing involving people's homes.

[Sir ROBERT GRANT-FERRIS in the Chair]

11.30 p.m.

It cannot be right to put this provision into the Bill, in face of Donovan and in face of the evidence of the way that picketing actually takes place in this country. Work places can be so much spread about nowadays, with employment in so many different establishments, that all sorts of difficult conditions can arise. But we have seen, for example, how picketing has been done in the Post Office dispute recently, when workers expressed, as is their right, their fundamental disagreement with others who wanted to go into work.

Hon. Members opposite talk about a person's right to be free to do this, that and the other. Trade unionists also have rights, particularly when, as in the Post Office dispute, they are in an overwhelming majority. In fact, there has been no violence during this dispute.

Mr. Scott-Hopkins: The Post Office workers—we saw it on television—were picketing girl telephonists who wanted to go back. That was men against women.

Mr. Orme: There is equality in our society, as is evidenced by the presence of some hon. Ladies on the hon. Gentleman's own side of the Committee tonight. My understanding is that women today are quite able to stand up for themselves. But the important fact is that there was no violence. That is what must be acknowledged.
History shows that there has been very little violence in this country. In other countries where there are rigid laws governing trade disputes, such as the United States and Australia, there is far more violence. The Solicitor-General's desire to alter the law as it now stands only shows that he does not understand the basic philosophy behind what trade


unionists do when picketing in an industrial dispute, and why they publicly exercise their right to display the fact that they are in dispute, encouraging other workers not to go into the place of employment.
In many instances they are people of great courage who do this sort of thing. [Laughter.] One or two hon. Members laugh at that. In 1970, to take part in an industrial dispute, putting one's job in jeopardy, takes a great deal of courage.

Mr. Percival: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will accept that I am certainly not laughing at anything he says. I appreciate that a person may feel strongly on these matters and that it may require courage to picket around or near the place of work. That I understand. But I do not understand why it should be necessary to reserve the right to do it at a man's residence. The hon. Gentleman has not directed his argument to that.

Mr. Orme: I have directed my argument to that. I am showing that, if we start circumscribing the limits of where one may or may not picket, that in itself will be provocative, and the more so since hon. Members opposite have produced no evidence to show that picketing at homes has given rise to the sort of conduct towards wives and families which they allege takes place.

Mr. McNamara: Would my hon. Friend consider this situation? The employer invites to his home prospective strike-breakers, wines and dines them, puts them on a motor coach, and then drives them through a picket line at a furious speed and on board a ship. The home has been used as a centre to gather the men together and exhort them to break the strike. That is a clear example of a home being used for strikebreaking, and it happened in the Hull fishermen's strike last year. All the evidence is on the record.

Mr. Orme: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. That underlines the danger of defining the methods of picketing. The action proposed in the Clause heightens the danger and does not lessen it. The present law fully protects people against unlawful picketing and violence. Nobody is excluded from it, and nobody justifies violence. Therefore, why should

the Solicitor-General want to change the law? Why should he want to circumscribe it? We can only be driven to the conclusion that this is fundamentally a narrowing of the lines of demarcation and that it opens the way to the basic attack on picketing itself which could take place later.
The Solicitor-General has a case to answer, because his hon. Friends have not answered it tonight.

Mr. Kenneth Lewis: I was rather surprised at the hon. Member for Doncaster (Mr. Harold Walker) should press the matter so hard. He said that there was very little violence in picketing. There is some violence in it sometimes. The hon. Member for Salford, West (Mr. Orme) mentioned the Pilkington case, where there was some violence, and we have seen it from time to time. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Salford, West said it in his speech, and he can read it tomorrow. Whether he said it or not, it is true; it has happened. I should have thought that the hon. Member for Doncaster, speaking from the Opposition Front Bench, would have been on the side of those who want to maintain the privacy of the home.
If I have any criticism of my hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor-General it is that he has widened picketing too far, because the Clause says that it can take place anywhere except at the home. It can take place in the supermarket, or when a man is shopping in the High Street, or going down town to a sporting event. Is the hon. Member for Doncaster saying that the great trade union movement wants to picket a home? That means that a congregation of working men outside the home might be provoked by the wife inside it, and there might be an argument that became so heated that the children were concerned about what was going on. Is that what the hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends want?
It should be pinned on Labour Members that time after time when, whatever differences we might have on the Bill, we are debating matters on which there should be agreement, they are on the side of the extremists and we are on the side of moderate opinion.

Mr. Harold Walker: The hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends must not misrepresent my speech as they are doing.


First, I made the general point that the climate of picketing had changed, not in such a way as to justify the proposed change in the law but in the very opposite direction. I then pointed out—and this was the theme of my speech—not that there was violent picketing of people's homes but that the Solicitor-General is preventing the peaceful communication of information, the peaceful persuasion not to work. That is the point. Hon. Members should address themselves to my example of the postman knocking at his mate's door to tell him that there was a meeting next day. That would be an offence under the Bill.

Mr. Sidney Bidwell: I hope that we can take a serious look at what is proposed here and that we will not follow the intemperate attitude of the hon. Member for Rutland and Stamford (Mr. K. Lewis). One of the features of British industrial life compared with that of most other countries is that it is relatively a peaceful situation. Violence is rare and an oddity. The massive peaceful march on Sunday demonstrated this characteristic of British Trade unions.
I want the Solicitor-General to direct his attention to the wording of Clause 121. In theory, it gives freedom to peaceful picketing, not only to persuade people not to go to work but also to persuade them to go to work. I ask him to consider the wording of subsection (1) and to tell us how one is peacefully to persuade someone to go to work without going to his home on occasion or without seeking him out if he is not in the betting shop or the pub. The Bill, in theory at any rate, is supposed to protect the rights of the employers as well as the workers. It is supposed to cut all ways. In certain circumstances, there may be a difference of opinion amongst the workers themselves; some may seek to persuade their fellows not to go to work while others may try to persuade them to do so. That is the theory of the Clause.
In normal circumstances, it is not desirable to go to people's homes for such purposes. The Committee should pay attention to the wording of the 1906 Act, which made it possible for peaceful picketing to go so far as visiting a person's home. There is no accurate definition of the word "picket". It is broadly described in the 1906 Act and is broadly

described in this Bill. The picture we have of a picket is a striker, usually furnished with an arm band to distinguish him from other workers—one sees pickets nowadays outside the major post offices and other centres where Post Office employees normally work—and seeking peacefully to persuade his fellow workers not to go to work.
But the 1906 Act—indeed, the legislation right back to the repeal of the Combination Acts in 1825—never said that a picket had to wear an arm band or that he in any way had to distinguish himself from any other member of the community. Obviously, many circumstances must arise where the lines of communication must be extended from the factory gate. The 1906 Act already provides that it must be done in a peaceful manner, that there must be no molestation and no violence. If there is violence, other proceedings can take place under the law. Now, one may take a picket to court and try to prove that he was in some way offending against the provisions of this Bill.
11.45 p.m.
The Solicitor-General has this evening, as we quaintly say at this time of night, proved on other Clauses that he is more amenable and reasonable than I thought he was when we started discussing this massive Bill. He says that he wants to be fair and that he wants good trade unionism. This is the occasion when he can prove that he does. If we are to have properly and lawfully conducted strikes, which the hon. and learned Gentleman says that he wants in certain circumstances, when the trade union is registered and when it has gone through the whole gamut of the law and so on, if unions are to be strengthened by being able to strike without falling foul of the law, let him consider these proposals very carefully.
From time to time we have snippets in the Press about homes being visited when there is a strike and when certain undesirable things occur. But if these events were not rare, they would not make news and be reported in the newspapers. There is thus no need for the hon. and learned Gentleman to clutter up his courts, even more than they will be cluttered, with instances of people stepping over the line. In Tory lawyer debating circles it has long been an old wives' tale that such


things are not rare, but workers must have freedom to band together with colleagues and withdraw their labour when an employer is unreasonable.
We know that the picketing of homes has been a shuttlecock in the history of industrial relations, that sometimes it has been allowed and sometimes not. But one may have heard that one's brother is a blackleg in a strike and one may have been so horrified that one has gone peacefully to persuade him over a cup of coffee not to be a blackleg, and I ask the hon. and learned Gentleman to address himself to that situation.

Mr. Gower: The debate has demonstrated that, far from being the progressive party which they profess to be, the Opposition are looking further and further back into history, and in the context of today most of their arguments are inapposite.
The hon. Member for Salford, West (Mr. Orme) said that the Government were wrong to specify the places at which picketing could properly take place. There is no attempt to do that. All we have done is make one narrow exception. We have said that picketing may take place anywhere except in a person's home, and that is not rigidly specifying the law.
When people lived in terraced houses or streets near to each other—

Hon. Members: They still do.

Mr. Gower: In my constituency, when people lived almost entirely in those conditions, it was rather different. Today they live in flats, great tower blocks, tenements and even in caravans. [Laughter.] Hon. Members may laugh but—

Mr. Tom King: I am most impressed by the housing conditions in Wales which I had not realised were so extensive. Would my hon. Friend agree that the main burden of hon. Members' arguments was that the Donovan Commission's Report made exhaustive studies about picketing? Could he tell me how exhaustive these were? I cannot find them in the Report. The Commission studied it but the Report appears to consist of a review of the previous law on the subject and a few reports submitted by individuals, including the T.U.C. and

the Society of Labour Lawyers. Surely the point—[Interruption.]

Mr. Gower: The point I was making is that today people live in very varied kinds of homes. I should have thought that the argument put forward by my hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Stamford (Mr. Kenneth Lewis) was even more pertinent today than in years gone by.

Mr. McNamara: The hon. Member will have heard the example I gave to my hon. Friend about a situation which occurred in 1970 when a home was used by strike breakers for a meeting and for them then to go forward to break a picket line. By pure chance the television cameras had also been invited and accompanied these strike breakers through the picket line. The only other place that could possibly have been used for picketing was in the Humber, around the actual place where the men's place of work was, or on the north-west coast of Iceland. How are we to deal with that situation?

Mr. Gower: The point I was making is that people live under very disparate conditions. What is important is that people are much more mobile, there are many more opportunities for things to be carried out in various places. Far from imposing a rigid pattern, this provision leaves the maximum opportunity for picketing and says only that a man's home should be excluded.

Mr. James Sillars: I could talk on this for a great deal longer than the few minutes we have left—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."]—I must say that I expected a statement from the Leader of the House earlier—in view of the Prime Minister's statement that he would like to continue the discussion on the Bill—to the effect that the guillotine had been lifted. The Prime Minister would find great difficulty in this respect, because he has the most appalling Division record.

Mr. McNamara: In fairness to the Prime Minister, my hon. Friend would surely agree that this was a fait accompli with which he was faced when he returned from the Singapore Conference. It was decided when he was in foreign parts.

Mr. Sillars: That is one part of the right hon. Gentleman's memoirs to which


I will look forward. [HON. MEMBERS: "Speak up."] If hon. Gentlemen opposite do not understand my accent, I cannot make any apology for that, because I have the greatest difficulty in understanding what the disc jockey for commercial radio says.
I listened carefully to hon. Members opposite talking about the importance of people having privacy in their own homes. One hon. Gentleman opposite almost brought tears to my eyes when he talked about the wife and children. He does not need to convince me of the problems when an outside agency invades the privacy of the home. As a local authority member and as a Member of Parliament, I have been involved in eviction from tied houses, so I do not need to be persuaded on the point. I should be the last to defend the invasion of the privacy of the home of anyone, whether he was on strike or a strike-breaker.
But I should have thought that hon. Members opposite would have some sympathy for the person involved in a strike, such as the postman who has to go back to the privacy of his home and meet his wife and children in almost a state of destitution. [Interruption.] It is no good hon. Members opposite pooh-poohing this question of destitution among postmen. They have put a lot of political cash on the hope that they will manage to starve the postmen out in the next 24 or 48 hours or even in the next seven days. They well know the position of postmen whose union did not have a strike fund before the strike started.
The reason that I am speaking is that I wish to answer the hon. Member fcr Paddington, South (Mr. Scott). I do not mind answering him, because he has taken part in almost all our discussions in Committee and he is entitled to a reply. He gave a good reason, from his point of view, for opposing our Amendment. He said that it lay with us to prove that it could be necessary for people peacefully to picket the home of an individual. I should like to quote one of the most recent outstanding examples north of the Border.
It concerns the B.S.R. dispute at East Kilbride. In the dispute there was an exceptional employer in just about every sense of the word. People interested in

Northern Ireland affairs know that better than anyone else. This employer decided to break the strike by recruiting blacklegs from a very wide area and by driving them through the picket lines in closed vans and closed buses at a fair rate of knots. Some of the people on picket duty were injured by motor vehicles. It was impossible for the people on strike peacefully to communicate a point of view to the people engaged in strike breaking.
There was violence at the work gates, but it was not caused by the strike breakers. It occurred because of the manner in which the strike breakers were being conveyed through the picket lines. The only place at which the strikers could put their point of view to the strike breakers was at the strike breakers' homes. That was the only place where they could persuade them that what they were doing was not in the interest of the working community of Lanarkshire and was not in their own personal interest. All those on strike knew that when they had won their battle, as they would, and the strike was settled, the strike breakers would be sacked by the employer.

Mr. Scott: Whoever created it, I can think of no worse atmosphere than the one which the hon. Gentleman has described for picketing to take place, namely, at people's homes where wives and children were living.

Mr. Sillars: The atmosphere was not chosen by the strikers. It was dictated by the methods used to break through the picket lines. The hon. Gentleman should think of the situation of the work-people involved in the strike. The ability to picket those going to the work gate is an important psychological sanction, one of the few weapons we have in keeping essential unity during a strike. Removal of this sanction does not enhance the position of the worker on strike, and it may well be that this is the purpose of the Solicitor-General—

It being Twelve o'clock, The CHAIRMAN left the Chair to report Progress and ask leave to sit again, pursuant of the Order of the House of 25th January.

Committee report Progress: to sit again this day.

TELEVISION PROGRAMME CONTRACTORS (LEVY PAYMENTS)

12.1 a.m.

The Minister of Posts and Telecommunications (Mr. Christopher Chataway):: I beg to move,
That the Television Act 1964 (Additional Payments) Order, 1971, a draft of which was laid before this House on 16th February, be approved.
The purpose of the Order is to reduce by half the amount of the levy payments due from the I.T.V. programme companies, so that, if the earnings of the companies stayed at the present level, the yield of the levy would fall from £20 million to £10 million in a full year. The draft Order requires the approval of both Houses of Parliament. If, as I hope, that can be secured, I intend to bring the Order into operation at the earliest practicable date after approval.
The House might like me to recall briefly the background to the levy payable by the companies. When they first started, the original I.T.V. companies incurred heavy losses. But it was not long before these losses were overcome, and the industry soon began to yield considerable profits, to the point where the return on their investment became excessive. The first attempt to tackle that problem was made by the then Chancellor of the Exchequer in the 1961 Budget, in which was introduced a television advertisement duty at a flat rate of 10 per cent., which was increased in 1962 to 11 per cent. That system turned out to be unsatisfactory. Charged at a flat rate, the duty bore excessively harshly on the smaller regional companies, but it still left the largest companies with very big profits.
To deal with this situation, the Television Act, 1963, introduced the new system of additional rental payments which at once became known as the levy. At that point there were to be two kinds of rental payments. The first kind was to be made by the companies to the Authority of amounts to be decided by the Authority so as to give it enough money altogether to construct and operate transmitters and carry out its other functions. In addition to rental payments there were to be other rental payments which were not to form part of the revenues of the Authority but were to be paid over as soon

as possible after receipt into the Consolidated Fund. These payments were to be calculated for each company on a sliding scale. In the scale originally provided in the Act, no additional payments were due on the first £1½ million of a company's advertising receipts, with the effect that the smallest companies did not have to pay any levy. The Act empowered the Minister to vary the scale by Order—such as the draft Order that is now before the House.
After consolidation in the Television Act, 1964, the new provisions came into force in July, 1964. The scale laid down by the Act remained in operation for nearly five years, but in the 1969 Budget the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Stechford (Mr. Roy Jenkins) announced that the Government had decided to introduce a new scale with the effect of increasing the yield of the levy by £3 million in a full year. However, there were—and the then Opposition drew attention to this—great increases in I.T.V's costs resulting from the new structure of programme companies with the new contracts awarded by the I.T.A. in 1968. There were also as a result of those changes new companies which had not had the opportunities to make the profits that the old companies had made. There were also increased costs resulting from the move into colour television.
Largely, as a result of these factors, in March, 1970, my predecessor, the right hon. Member for Wednesbury (Mr. Stonehouse), announced the decision, which took effect from April, 1970, to introduce a new scale, the effect of which would be to reduce the yield of levy by £6 million in a full year. At the same time he announced that the costs and revenue of the I.T.V. companies were being referred to the National Board for Prices and Incomes.
The N.B.P.I.'s report was published in October of last year. The Board's report did not directly comment on the level of the levy, since the terms of the reference to the Board had expressly precluded that, but the report highlighted the financial position of the industry and, as soon as it was received by the Government, I embarked on discussions with the Independent Television Authority.
The main findings of the report were as follows. Because of declining revenue,


rising costs, and the levy, contractors had held back their expenditure on programmes and at the same time had substantially reduced their profits. The Board's projections of costs and revenues into the middle 1970s, on whatever basis they were made, suggested a continually worsening position. The Board saw some scope for improving revenue prospects by improved sales of advertising time and by more effective use of resources, but the Board considered that these measures by themselves would be unlikely to raise significantly the industry's rate of return on capital over the next few years. Finally, the Board suggested that some reduction in the number of television companies should be considered. In effect, it was suggesting that a modification of the regional pattern of I.T.V. should at least be considered.
The I.T.A. tells me that its contractors have been carefully studying the Board's recommendations for improved financial performance and that those recommendations have been followed up vigorously by the companies. The Authority, too, as the House will know, has agreed to some sharing of facilities between the companies. There have been one or two joint operations launched by the companies, particularly on the sales side.
The Authority, which is responsible for the programme company structure of independent television, has after consideration decided against reduction in the number of I.T.V. companies. This is a matter wholly for the Authority to decide. I am bound to say that I do not think it would be right for radical changes in the structure of the system to be made as a crisis measure in the middle of the contract period. The N.B.P.I. itself stressed that one of the needs of the I.T.V. system at the moment was for a period of certainty and to change programme structure in the middle of the contract period obviously would introduce considerable uncertainty. But this is a matter wholly for the Authority to decide.
The I.T.A. forcibly represented to me that, with all the improvements in the system which would be pursued, a very substantial reduction in the burden of levy on the companies was nevertheless essential. There were two particular factors which the I.T.A. brought out. The first was that if it were to keep pace

with the programme of constructing U.H.F. television stations, undertaken as an integrated plan by the I.T.A. and the B.B.C., the I.T.A. needed to increase its rentals from a total £8 million to a total £11½ million. The second was that, with the existing burden of levy, the quality of the programme service provided by I.T.V. would be more and more at risk.
We have decided, as the draft Order provides, to halve the yield of the levy. This will provide the system with enough income to allow the I.T.A. to introduce the increased rentals, and, in distributing among the different contractors the new rentals, the I.T.A. is reducing the cost for some of the companies, notably the smallest companies not directly liable to pay the levy. Of the remaining £6½ million made free, some will be needed to improve the rate of return on capital earned by the industry. The N.B.P.I. concluded that, for the industry as a whole, a substantial improvement was necessary to support a sound financial structure, and some of the companies, of course, had been facing the prospect of losses.
The I.T.A. has assured me also that this reduction —

Sir Harmar Nicholls: Is my right hon. Friend suggesting that this Order will give the industry a sound financial structure? Surely the whole set-up is wrong, and this Order merely tinkers with it. Should not it go back to making payments based on profits after the deduction of expenses based on a proper formula? I hope that my right hon. Friend does not think that this Order will result in a sound structure. We started wrongly, and right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite compounded the wrong. I hope that my right hon. Friend will put it right.

Mr. Chataway: I can assure my hon. Friend that I have ambitions in that direction, and I was about to come to the point which interests him most. I agree that, however looked at, the levy is not an ideal system.
I was telling the House that the I.T.A. had also assured me that this reduction in the levy should also make possible improvements in the quality of the programmes put out by the contracting companies and should enable I.T.N., which is jointly owned by all the contracting


companies, also to enjoy some additional resources.

Mr. Christopher Mayhew: We are grateful for the right hon. Gentleman's assurance that the I.T.A. has assured him that this reduction in the levy will lead to an improvement in programmes. However, he will remember that, when the levy was reduced at the beginning of last year, the same assurances were given by the I.T.A. and the programme companies. Will he now say whether in his view that assurance has been fulfilled?

Mr. Chataway: If that reduction last year, which followed closely upon an increase in the levy, had not been made, I have no doubt that there would have been a very serious reduction in the quality of programme standards of the I.T.V. companies. There are few people who have been involved with the I.T.V. companies over the last few years who will not be aware of the very serious effect that declining advertising revenue coupled with a very high rate of levy has had upon the companies. I think that the Report of the inquiry by the National Board for Prices and Incomes which was set up immediately after the reduction in the levy to which the hon. Gentleman has referred bears out the very substantial pressures that there have been on the companies and the fact that, in consequence, programme expenditure has declined. But I have considerable faith in the chairman and members of the I.T.A., who I am sure command considerable respect on both sides of the House. It would be odd if they did not, since most of them were appointed during the previous Government's period in office.

Mr. John Gorst: Does not my right hon. Friend agree that, if more money is left in the hands of the contractors, they will be encouraged to experiment with new types of programmes and take more risks which, in the tighter situation which existed before, was difficult for them?

Mr. Chataway: That is the point. The new Director-General of the I.T.A. has urged this upon the companies already. In the straitened circumstances of the last few years the I.T.V. companies have been able to take fewer risks; they have had to ensure greater successes, perhaps more than they ought to have done.

Mr. John Mendelson: Does the Minister agree that, despite the assurance which he has received from the Authority, if capital control in some of the companies goes into the hands of people who have proved in other spheres that they can make more profit by lowering standards they will think that they are able to do it again? Or is the Minister insisting on strong measures being taken by the Authority to prevent such a development?

Mr. Chataway: The hon. Gentleman knows that the I.T.V. system is constructed in such a way that there are considerable incentives not only to maximise audiences by taking account of what people want to watch, but to cater for minorities. Those companies which do not do so know that they face some risk of losing their contracts at the end of the contract period. The system is constructed not only to provide programmes which appeal to majorities, but to minorities. The hon. Gentleman need not feel that there will be inadequate incentive to produce programmes which will appeal to him.
It is my intention that the levy at this scale should last at least until July, 1972, which is the end of the next full levy year. For the longer period, I share my hon. Friend's view. I am doubtful about the present way that the levy is charged. As a charge on revenue, not profits, it continues at times when companies are much less readily able to pay it, because of rising costs and static or declining income. When that happens, profits fall and expenditure which can be cut is cut. That usually means that expenditure on programmes is cut.
We can change the sliding scale on the strength of the best assessment we can make of the profits of the different sizes of companies. This was how the scale was fixed in the 1963 Act and no doubt how the scales were fixed, or were intended to be fixed, in 1969 and 1970. But this, as I think many hon. Members will agree, is an uncertain instrument.
In 1963, when the levy was introduced, the idea of a levy directly related to profits was rejected, because it was felt that it was liable to encourage excessively lavish spending and would be likely to offer greater opportunities for avoidance. There may have been a good deal in that in the high profit situation which obtained


at that time. But now, when the danger of excessive profits is, to say the least, remote, the Government have decided to have another look, in conjunction with the Authority, at the possibility of devising a new system which could operate more fairly, if a new system can be found. Obviously there are one or two other alternatives simply to that of an excess profits tax. I cannot promise that a new system will be found in this period, but we have decided to look at the possibility, and I believe that the majority would think that right.
If we are conferring in this system a monopoly, as in some senses we are, it is right that if very large profits are produced the State should have some share in them. But we want to try to devise a system which, while fair in that direction to the community and to the companies, also ensures that when things are not going so well programme standards and expenditure are maintained. I do not think that anyone would believe that we have as yet arrived at the best system.
As I indicated to the House the other day, there has been real concern about the financing of both broadcasting organisations. I was able then to announce changes in the B.B.C. licence fees which would yield the Corporation an extra £16 million in a full year. Most hon. Members on both sides—though I realise, not all—now accept the value of competition in television, and believe that there is value in an alternative commercial system. The changes proposed in the Order will, I believe, help to put that system upon a sound financial footing once more, and on that ground I commend the Order to the House.

12.20 a.m.

Mr. Ivor Richard: The right hon. Gentleman quoted from paragraph 150 of the Report of the National Board for Prices and Incomes and said that it showed a continuously worsening situation in regard to N.B.P.I. projections of costs and incomes into the 'seventies. He did not, unfortunately, read the remainder of the paragraph, which states:
… though without the levy profits would on average remain high in relation to profits in industry generally.

So perhaps that Report did not produce quite the picture of gloom which the Minister gave us in respect of the television companies.
Certain things seemed to me to be lacking in what the right hon. Gentleman said. The first was in connection with advertising receipts and profits, and projections of advertising rates in future. My information is that net advertising revenue for Independent Television has declined fairly considerably in the years 1968, 1969 and 1970. I am told, for example, that net advertising revenue for the year to 29th July, 1968, was £94,930,000; to the same date in 1969 it went up to £98,623,000, and then it dropped somewhat in 1970 to £92,737,000. In 1970 we had the £6 million levy reduction introduced by the previous Government.
If the Minister came here tonight to tell us that the state of the programme companies is such that the levy has to be reduced by another £10 million, I should have thought that the first thing he would do was to give us the projection of either his Ministry or of the I.T.A. of the likely decline in advertising revenue in the year to 29th July, 1971. We also want to know, and these are legitimate requests, what the levy is likely to be on the basis of the projected advertising rates. Presumably the £10 million reduction he asks for is based on some figures, and is not just a sum plucked from the air. I shall have something to say later about the way in which the Minister proposes that the reduction shall be made, but quite apart from the way in which the companies are or are not to benefit from the reduction, I hope that the overall amount by which he thinks it right to reduce the levy is based on some concrete figures. If so, I should like to have them. Further, can the Minister tell us what was the net advertising revenue after levy in 1968, 1969 and 1970; and his projection of net advertising revenue after levy in 1971?
Finally, perhaps the crucial figure the House will want to have before it can decide whether a reduction of as much as £10 million can be sanctioned—this is an enormous figure—is the estimated profit figure of the programme companies, before tax, in the year 1971 and onwards. After all, the Minister has told us that this levy is to remain in existence at its current rate until July, 1972.


Armed with that figure the House might be able to form some judgment as to whether the overall figure the Minister is asking by way of reduction, namely, £10 million, is correct. I am staggered that the Minister did not think fit to give us these figures in moving the Order.

Sir Harmar Nicholls: Why does the hon. Gentleman pretend that he wants somebody to give him an estimate? As one of his distinguished predecessors said, "Why look in the crystal ball when you can read the book?" Has not the hon. Gentleman seen the balance sheets of the programme companies? Has he not noticed the trend revealed therein? All this is public knowledge. Why is the hon. Gentleman pretending that we do not have the information, when it is clear for us to see and form conclusions on?

Mr. Richard: That is an interesting question. It is the Minister, not the Opposition that is asking the House to reduce the levy by £10 million. In this situation the Opposition are entitled to ask the Minister for the figures upon which he has formed his judgment. If he has figures upon which he has formed his judgment, he should let us have them. The balance sheets of the companies will tell us the past profit figures. I know of no balance sheet which has yet been published which will give us the estimated profits of these companies for 1972, 1973 and 1974, and those are the figures upon which the Minister must form his judgment.

Mr. Gorst: The hon. Gentleman started by quoting part of a paragraph from the Report of the National Board for Prices and Incomes which he said had not been quoted. The hon. Gentleman has forgotten that since the publication of that Report a strike prevented transmission in colour, and that increased the costs of the contractors. Those increased costs, together with increased wage packets, must be met.

Mr. Richard: I am obliged to the hon. Gentleman. May I through you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, throw the hon. Gentleman's point over to the Minister. If the situation has worsened since the publication of the Report, what is the Minister's estimate of the amendment by which it has worsened? If we knew that, we could form a judgment as to whether the overall figure of £10 million

is correct. This is a serious matter. The Minister treated it in a somewhat flippant manner. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] All that the Minister did was to give us a potted history of the levy over the past five or six years, read half a paragraph from the Report of the National Board for Prices and Incomes, and then say, "In my judgment, it means that the companies should get a reduction of £10 million". The right hon. Gentleman treated the House in a cavalier fashion, and it was unworthy of him.
It is a serious matter for the Minister to ask the House to approve a reduction in the levy by £10 million so shortly after he has announced an increase in the licence fee for the whole country. This means, as I said to the Minister last week, that both broadcasting authorities are in serious difficulties. Neither of the proposals that the Minister made can be more than a palliative. To that extent I agree with the point made by the hon. Member for Peterborough (Sir Harmar Nicholls). It means also that we shall want to debate in full the question of radio and television financing.
If Parliament is asked to sanction a reduction of £10 million in the levy, the Minister must justify it up to the hilt.
Also interesting is the way in which the Minister proposes to reduce the levy. If the object of this reduction was to aid those companies in the greatest financial difficulty, presumably those with the smallest income, which make the smallest profits, I would have expected a rather more subtle and helpful method of doing it than merely an overall reduction of 50 per cent.
It is interesting to compare the rates sanctioned in 1970 with those sanctioned under the Order. In 1970, for example, the rate of levy for a company whose advertising receipts were less than £2 million was nil. In the Order, the Minister not being able to halve nil, it remains nil. So for those companies at the bottom of the ladder the Order gives no financial help at all.
For those companies whose receipts are up to £6 million, the rate in 1970 was 20 per cent. and under the Order it is 10 per cent., a straight 50 per cent. reduction. For those companies with receipts up to £9 million, the rate was 35 per cent. reduced now to 17½ per cent. For those


with receipts of £12 million, it was 40 per cent., reduced to 20 per cent. For those with receipts of £16 million, it was 45 per cent., reduced now to 22½ per cent., and for those with receipts of over £16 million, it has been reduced from 50 per cent. to 25 per cent.
It is clear that it is the companies which are better off and most capable of paying the levy which will benefit the most from the way in which the Minister has chosen to try to reduce it. It is rather like halving the income tax and then saying, "Look how well I am doing for those who pay the least." It is a fallacious argument. If what the Minister wants to do is genuinely to aid those companies at the bottom of the ladder, this is not the way to do it.
I have two questions about what is to happen to the £10 million. It is important to realise, as the right hon. Gentleman said, that £3½ million of it goes to the I.T.A. I am not certain what the I.T.A. will do with it. The Minister said something about possibly improving I.T.N., but I should like to hear more about that.
It is also perhaps apposite to consider in this context the position of London Weekend Television. I do not want to deal with it at great length, because that would be out of order on this Order, but I think that it is in order to ask whether or not the recent events in London Weekend Television justify us in giving that company the reduction in the levy which it would get if the Order were approved. To say the least, the recent affairs of London Weekend Television have been unfortunate. If Mr. Murdoch is to acquire it, and if he is to be relieved of this portion of the levy, certain questions arise which should be aired and answered—and the place for that is this House.
First, what should be the I.T.A.'s attitude to a change of shareholding of this sort? Second, should its attitude be any different from what it would have been if Mr. Murdoch had been making a fresh application for a totally new franchise? Should the I.T.A. now call in the franchise of London Weekend, as it has the power to do under the Act, in which case the Order would be meaningless so far as London Weekend was concerned, although it would come

to have some relevance if a merger were sanctioned? Indeed, should the I.T.A. try to encourage a merger, or should it be content with a possible Murdoch acquisition?
We on this side would say that it is now very important that the I.T.A. should treat the Murdoch shareholding as though it was a fresh application for a vacant franchise—

Mr. Gorst: On a point of order. Is it in order in this debate for the hon. Member to smear the company concerned in this fashion?

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Robert Grant-Ferris): Nothing that the hon. Member for Barons Court (Mr. Richard) has said so far has been out of order. It has been the practice of the Chair on similar occasions to allow a fairly wide debate on the matter. To go into the merits of the Television Act would, of course, not be in order.

Mr. Gorst: Further to my point of order. Are the merits of individual contractors under that Act in order?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Nothing that has been said so far has been out of order.

Mr. Richard: I cannot recall saying anything about the merits or otherwise of Mr. Murdoch's application. I have merely pointed out that, given the present situation in London Weekend Television, we believe it to be important that the Independent Television Authority should now treat the present situation in London Weekend as if it were a fresh application for a franchise that was vacant. In other words, given the fact that there is genuine public unease and disquiet over the present position, I know of no other way by which the matter can be fairly and openly resolved.
Similar assurances should now be sought from Mr. Murdoch and the acquiring company as would be sought if it were a fresh application for a vacant franchise. Schedules should now be deposited with the I.T.A. as if this were a fresh application. The principle underlying this point is simply that if the provisions of the Act can be evaded merely by one company acquiring a share in another which at present has a franchise,


then it makes nonsense of the safeguards which were built into the Statute and of the whole system.
As a number of my hon. Friends wish to speak in this debate, I will comment only briefly on the future of the levy. It is important to recognise that this has not proved to be the most satisfactory system by which the public can share in the use by the television authorities of what is obviously a public asset.
The levy has, to say the least, been haphazard. At times when the companies have been seen to be doing well, the levy has gone up. When they have been seen to be doing badly, it has gone down. If their revenue has gone up, up has gone the levy, but if it has gone down, we have been faced, as we are tonight, with an application for a reduction of as much as the enormous sum of £10 million.
Of far more importance than perpetuating the existing system is the need to devise a method which, while giving to the public a direct say in the way in which these public assets are used, nevertheless gives a greater degree of permanence and certainty than is given by the present system.
The Minister said that he was thinking along certain lines with an open mind. What are those lines, and in what direction is he thinking with an open mind? The House is being asked to relinquish £10 million worth of the system. It is time that the Minister answered these questions.

12.38 a.m.

Mr. David James: I understand that the House has had a number of late nights recently. I will, therefore, be brief, and I will certainly not speak for 1 hour 45 minutes.
While I am prepared to give a qualified welcome to this proposal—on the ground that half a loaf is better than no bread—I object in principle to the levy which we are discussing and I note that my right hon. Friend is considering the matter.
At least I can claim some historical continuity in what I am doing, for my hon. Friend the Member for Peterborough (Sir Harmer Nicholls), whom I am glad to see in his place, my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Down,

South (Captain Orr), who I regret is not here tonight, and myself are the only three surviving hon. Members of the Committee in 1963 who voted against this form of taxation on three separate occasions upstairs in Committee Room No. 10.
It is nice to be back in the game and to be able to continue the argument. Our reasons are simple. We of course accept—there can be no argument about this —the proposition advanced in paragraph 1 of the White Paper, Cmnd. 4524, which said that the levy was
designed to reflect the fact that the state had conferred upon them
—that is, the commercial television companies
the sole right to operate a commercial television service within a given area".
I accept that at the time that the Bill was going through in 1963, it was intended to deal with what, in the current phrase, were regarded as companies in a position to coin their own money. But that situation has markedly weakened now. With the improvements in techniques such as transmission of colour programmes by land line, Telstar and so on, it is possible that, in a couple of years, the monopoly position which gave rise to the levy will no longer effectively exist. Nevertheless, we accept that fact of history as the common ground from which this entire rather sad story started.
The point which my hon. Friend the Member for Peterborough and I hammered home, or tried to hammer home, without success, in 1963 is brought out in paragraph 141 of the P.I.B. Report:
… the form of the levy … as prescribed by the Television Act, is related to advertising revenue. The basic defect of this method of assessing the levy is that it pays no regard to surplus or profit".
That has been our case for seven years, and it remains our case today. A company which is producing first-class programmes may, in fact, be running into a loss situation.
Perhaps I should make clear at this point that I have no interest, commercial or otherwise, in this matter, save that I was an employee of the film industry for two years, and I have a strong emotional affinity, so to speak, with such people as the artistes, and, more particularly, the camera men, the lighting men, and all the technicians who are part of this industry, and I know the


rate of unemployment which they have to face.

Mr. Richard: Selective quotation from that Report seems to be the vogue on the benches opposite. It is a pity that the hon. Gentleman did not read the sentence in the next paragraph:
We conclude that it is difficult to find a method of assessing the levy which is clearly better than relating it to advertising revenue".

Mr. James: If I had wanted to emulate the hon. Member for West Ham, North (Mr. Arthur Lewis), who spoke yesterday for an hour and 45 minutes, I need not have been so selective in my quotations. I am trying to condense my argument. The consideration which I put to my right hon. Friend is that, while, reluctantly, I must accept what he has proposed as a make-shift solution, my whole case on the levy is that it is utterly wrong in principle and always has been. We accept the crumb of bread which he has offered as only an interim measure.
As we predicted seven years ago, there is no possibility under the present system of offsetting rising costs save for the Minister periodically to come to the House and involve us in a debate after midnight at a time when the House is hard pressed. It leads to a lack of funds for programmes. This is common ground between both sides of the House. It is common knowledge that the quality of programmes has fallen as a result of this ill-conceived levy. It has led to a high rate of unemployment.
I did my utmost when the Bill was in Committee in 1963 to persuade the trade union leaders involved to appreciate that it was a wicked old Tory who was arguing on the side of full employment for their members, for N.A.T.T.K.E. and the others. The present system has led to widespread unemployment in the television industry. Indeed, the entire impact of the levy was arbitrary and militated against creative television.
I am not prepared to accept the sort of "old rope" which is put about that these companies are not worth consideration because they have diversified into bingo halls and so on. So they have, but they have diversified into other fields only in order to fund the programmes which they wanted to put out. Incidentally, some of the series of programmes

have gained for this country enormous Prestige in the United States.

Mr. Phillip Whitehead: The process of diversification began in the early 1960s, when some of these companies were earning about a 60 per cent. return on equity.

Mr. James: I certainly accept that. I admitted that a monopoly situation probably imposed on the State the duty to impose an additional levy. All I am saying is that the process was accelerated by the arbitrary nature of a levy on gross profit as opposed to net revenue.

Mr. Gerald Kaufman: I do not quarrel with the hon. Gentleman about diversification by independent television companies, whether financially they are doing well or badly. All companies, of whatever kind, should have the right to diversify. But does not the hon. Gentleman agree that therefore it is folly of the Government to attempt to prevent the National Coal Board, for example, from diversifying?

Mr. James: The hon. Gentleman has brought in a very well-known argument rather ingeniously by the short hairs. I do not propose to pursue that in relation to television companies. Perhaps he would like to raise it on the Industrial Relations Bill or in some other way.
I hope that the House, having listened to some rather long speeches recently, will not confuse brevity with levity, and will accept that a number of us, perhaps on both sides, believe that historically my hon. Friend and I were right in believing that the levy was a death blow to creative television production. While I will always go for half a loaf rather than no bread, my earnest hope is that my right hon. Friend, come 1972, will produce a very much fairer system based, if such a levy is still necessary under the new technology we are to have in three years' time, on net profit and not on gross receipts.

12.47 a.m.

Mr. Philip Whitehead: I prefer to give perhaps 1½ cheers and if necessary one vote to the Order. This is a palliative measure; it can be no more. It is tinkering with the system. We accept that the system is starved of funds and that the levy must be reduced.
I begin by declaring a past interest, in that I worked for three years for Thames Television, the largest of the independent contractors, during precisely that period during which the difficulties to which the Minister referred became apparent. I joined Rediffusion Television at the period when it lost its contract and was faced with all the problems of the merger, and then when the down-turn in television advertising revenue came Thames Television had the burden of the additional levy foolishly imposed by the previous Chancellor. This accentuated the problems of the companies.
The Minister asked the House to make certain assumptions, which many of us on this side could not make. First, he said that we all believed in competition. and should therefore see that the alternative system, the commercial system, was in reasonable strength. Many of us believe that there are different forms of competition. The Minister's various statements about commercial radio have always assumed that competition must be between a commercial system and a public service system. But there can be competition between alternative public
service systems. The misgivings expressed on this side of the House tonight very largely come from what we see as the relative failure of the public service element built into the commercial system in the Acts of 1954 and 1964.
The Minister brushed aside again the merger recommendations of the Report of the National Board for Prices and Incomes, at paragraphs 140 and 155. He said that we should not consider mergers because they would be a grave disruption in the middle of the contract period. A much more serious disruption, and much less in the public interest, would be that permanent deterioration in programme quality which I think we shall get from unprofitable contractors who, because of the logic of profit maximisation, cannot put on, and are not prepared to put on, the kind of programme which the public have every reason to expect and which the Independent Television Authority should be compelling them to give us. Having said that, I want to quote what the Minister said in introducing this proposal to the House on 15th February. He said:
… these reductions … are also designed to enable the companies to improve the quality of their programmes and those of Independent

Television News. The Authority has assured me that it is its intention to use this opportunity to secure such an improvement."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 15th February, 1971; Vol. 811, c. 1211–2.]
It is our contention that, although the right hon. Gentleman clearly cannot instruct the Authority, and should resist those who tell him that he should be some sort of commissar of communications, he must be aware that the Authority is not a perfect organisation. The noble Lord, Lord Aylestone and his head prefect, Mr. Bryan Young, have not so far shown in the instructions they have been able to give to the companies that the companies can be forced to live up to their assurances.
It was on this point that my hon. Friend the Member for Barons Court (Mr. Richard) made a comment which the hon. Member for Hendon, North (Mr. Gorst) thought was out of order. I think that the hon. Member is not the first person in the House to say which commercial promises should be investigated and which should not. The sad case of London Weekend Television more than any other case history in commercial television shows what value we can place on assurances given by programme companies and contractors to the Authority. I remind the House of what was said in the tender put up to the Authority by the L.W.T. consortium in 1967. The tender said that its philosophy was a simple one, namely,
… that while the stability and financial and business expertise of a potential programme company was obviously a paramount consideration for all concerned, nevertheless that it was a television company that was being planned and that there was no reason why people who knew about television, cared about television, and did television should not have an effective voice in the running of that company…
Where have all the flowers gone? Gone to grave yards, everyone. Not a single person named in that submission remains with L.W.T., with the one exception of the Chairman, Mr. Aidan Crawley, a suitable figurehead, perhaps, to nail to any ship but not a particularly good figurehead to steer that company or any other into a safe harbour. Indeed, he is nailed to a very dubious privateer now.
I was a member of the delegation which went to the Authority on 25th September, 1969, to impress upon it that the sackings which had then taken place of Mr.


Michael Peacock and others imposed upon the Authority a duty to invoke Section 11(4) of the Television Act. The Authority said that it could not do so because the change in the body corporate had been purely of programme people and not a change in the financial holdings.
There has now been a change in the financial holdings. Mr. Rupert Murdoch now holds 8½ per cent. of the voting shares and 35 per cent. of the non-voting shares. The Authority, in my view, therefore ought to be acting in this matter. It should be acting to ensure that Mr. Murdoch gives a full account of the kind of programme schedules he wishes to propose, and of his proposed production staff. He himself is de facto programme controller, although he carefully avoids the name, of course. He has not given the assurances for which the Authority should be asking. Instead, he is taking off for Australia when the Authority is to meet on Thursday to examine the control of the company.

Mr. Norman Buchan: There is a precedent. In the case of Scottish Television there was such an interview when the Thomson Organisation divested itself of some of its shares.

Mr. Whitehead: I was coming to that. The holdings of the Thomson organisation were reduced to 25 per cent. in 1968 for precisely the reason that it was felt by the then I.T.A. Chairman, Lord Hill of Luton, that Section 12 of the Television Act—which refers to the interest of newspaper proprietors and the way it might be harmful to the public interest—should be invoked. The holdings of the Thomson Organisation were, of course, reduced.
What those of us on this side of the House would say to the Minister before we go into the Lobby—if we have to do so—to vote for the Order is that the assurances which the Independent Television Authority is able to give about programme quality cannot be seen separately from the behaviour of the Authority in the recent past. We think that the Authority should now be asking various questions about this holding which are relevant to the kind of assurances which the Minister has sought. Would Mr. Murdoch have got this contract in 1967–68? My submission is that he would not. Secondly, is there not actual

evidence from the newspapers which he operates, and more particularly from the three television channels which he operates in Australia, that the kinds of programme which he will put on are not the balanced programmes which the earlier Sections of the Television Act require?
The Sunday Press has had great fun with Mr. Murdoch about the world record which he holds for the number of old movies which he has been able to cram into his schedules in Australia. The least the Authority could do in this case is to require from Mr. Murdoch that the potential schedules are stated publicly and shown to the Authority, and and that a full statement should be submitted to the Authority before Mr. Murdoch is allowed to retain either financial control or programme control of this company.

Mr. Christopher Mayhew: Would not my hon. Friend go a little further and say that, in the light of his very public record, Mr. Murdoch is plainly not well qualified to take up this franchise?

Mr. Whitehead: I would not go quite as far as that. I would say that there was a prima facie reason for believing that Mr. Murdoch might not be so qualified and that therefore a public examination of the programmes he proposes to put on is needed and justified.
The Authority ought therefore to institute, and I hope that the Minister will urge it to institute, a full examination of the viability of this contract altogether and whether a 2½-day contract for the London area is viable. Plainly, the P.I.B. Report felt that it was not and more or less said so in paragraphs 140 and 155. If the Authority still feels that a 2½-day contract for the London area is viable, it should call in this contract and make Mr. Murdoch and anyone else who wishes to bid for the contract submit a public application to the Authority. I hope that the Minister will urge this course of action upon the Authority when it meets on Thursday.
If it decides that such a contract for the London area is not viable, it has a different course of action, which is to invite public bids once again from those other television companies in the area


which might themselves effect a merger with London Weekend Television.

Mr. Wyn Roberts: Does not the Authority already have power to ask for the schedule of programmes in advance, and therefore presumably Mr. Murdoch would in fact have to submit such a schedule? Is it not true that programes may not be televised without approval of the complete programme schedule by the Authority? Is not that contained in the company's licence?

Mr. Whitehead: It is true that no programme may be televised without the approval of the Authority, but it is equally true that neither the personnel of London Weekend Television, nor the financial holdings nor the programming policy of the company have been properly scrutinised, but merely rubber stamped on the excuse of financial expediency. The best that people in the Authority have been able to say about the arrival of Mr. Rupert Murdoch is that they needed the money and therefore had no alternative.
My submission is that as the Minister is now saying that the money is available and that the levy will not bear too hardly, he should equally say that these conditions do not apply and that the Authority should look with much greater scrutiny at London Weekend Television. If this is not done, the I.T.A. will have lost all credibility as a watch-dog organisation, and the Television Act of 1964 will be seen to be unworkable. And that will be a sad day for commercial television.

1.0 a.m.

Sir Harry Legge-Bourke: I should like to pick up what has been said about the Independent Television Authority. As far as I am concerned it has lost its reputation for a rather different reason. As the Minister knows, I have for some time, together with the right hon. Member for Grimsby (Mr. Crosland) and others who are concerned about the programmes on Anglia Television, been pursuing with him and Lord Aylestone, Chairman of the I.T.A., the behaviour of the Authority over the future of Belmont Tower.
I can never trust anything that the I.T.A. says again until it puts this matter right. I have in my hand a letter written

by Lord Hill, when he was Chairman of the I.T.A. It is dated 2nd August, 1967 and was written to Mr. Aubrey Buxton of Anglia Television. It says:
Dear Aubrey, It was good of you to write so swiftly and so generously. Thank you. To save time my secretary left a message at your office (in your absence) on the Belmont issue. The Authority decided last Thursday that Belmont stays with Anglia in U.H.F. Yours, Charles.
That letter, I should have thought on any reading, meant that Belmont Tower was to stay with Anglia Television as long as Anglia Television existed. There were no conditions attached whatever. Yet Lord Aylestone has now decided that in 1972, at the end of the present contract, Belmont Tower should no longer be used by Anglia. From this moment onwards I do not believe a word that the I.T.A. says, or anything said by any of its officials on its behalf. Unless Lord Aylestone rectifies this, I regard the I.T.A. as quite untrustworthy and I am saying this quite deliberately and with careful thought.
What disturbs me about this, although I am in favour of what my right hon. Friend is doing, is that the I.T.A. will get even as much as one penny out of this. I hope that my right hon. Friend realises how deeply all of us feel about this. He wrote to the right hon. Member for Grimsby on 14th January. I will not read that letter now, but we are by no means prepared to let the matter drop. It is outrageous that the I.T.A. should get even one penny from programme producers.

1.3 p.m.

Sir Geoffrey de Freitas: I agree with a good deal of what the hon. and gallant Member for Isle of Ely (Sir H. Legge-Bourke) said about the treatment of Anglia Television by the I.T.A. Anglia Television is one of the outstanding organisations in this country and I agree that the I.T.A. has behaved outrageously.
I wish to raise another point. It is not the first Parliament in which I have protested that the Government of the day have not organised business in such a way that important matters like this do not come before the House at this time in the morning. Whatever the Government in power, in my experience they have always behaved outrageously in such


arrangements. The present Government are even worse than the others and that is saying a lot. I ask the Minister to draw these few comments to the attention of the Leader of the House. I do not believe that such an important matter should be considered at this time.

1.5 p.m.

Sir Harmar Nicholls: I suppose that my right hon. Friend can take comfort from the fact that all these irrelevancies—important though they may be—

Sir G. de Freitas: rose—

Sir Harmar Nicholls: I have only just started. They are irrelevancies and I have no doubt that that is some comfort to my right hon. Friend because it means that there is not a great deal of criticism of what he is suggesting in this Order. I think that what he is suggesting is inevitable.

Mr. Whitehead: In what sense can a discussion of the way in which previous assurances about programme quality have not been kept be irrelevant to a debate which the Minister opened by referring to such assurances?

Sir H. Nicholls: I cannot suggest that the hon. Gentleman was out of order because he was allowed to continue with his speech by the occupant of the Chair, but he did not connect what he said about what is happening to London Weekend Television with anything to do with this Order. But that is not my point. I am sure that the amount of time taken up by the Opposition on other things is some confirmation that what is behind the Order is well based and should be approved. I think that we accept that without question.
I take it that the House will accept the Order because it is inevitable. In view of the balance sheets, the general trend and the falling off in advertising revenue and all the effects which flow from that, it is obvious that something must be done. What gives me the greatest pleasure is the fact that my right hon. Friend and the hon. Member for Barons Court (Mr. Richards) accept that the present way of extracting the levy is fundamentally wrong. It has been made clear that at the earliest possible moment, 1972, the matter will be looked at with

a view to making a base which is fair and which can be worked and which will not have to be varied every time there is a change in the advertising turnover of the company.
Both Front Benches, although they are occupied by different people now, are to blame for the situation. When the business of basing the levy on turnover was introduced, the Postmaster-General, representing the Conservative Government, had to rely on the wholehearted support of the Labour Opposition to get the proposal through against the feelings of hon. Members on the then Government side.
It was said that the reason that the levy could not be based on profits, which is the only way of doing it, was that there was a chance that the companies would "cook their books" as regards the expenses they put in and deliberately make it appear that there were no profits on which to base the levy. The point we made then, and which I make now, is that there are years of experience to show what the legitimate expenses should be. It is easy and indeed desirable for the companies to produce a formula which will show the amount of their income which should be spent on their productions. I hope that the promise which my right hon. Friend has given to look at this matter again means that any contribution they make to have this facility handed to them will be based on their profits and not on the turnover, which bears no relation to the expenses of running the programmes.

Mr. Stanley Orme: Would the hon. Gentleman agree that Lord Thomson did not help very much with his statement at that time?

Sir H. Nicholls: Certainly. It was a wild and silly statement and it was not true. In the early days of television the companies lost a lot of money. Many of them almost dropped out of existence. Lord Thomson, who is a flamboyant and shrewd character, used words which were taken up and used in a way which did much damage.
I was worried by something which the hon. Member for Derby, North (Mr. Whitehead) said. He suggested that the Opposition's view about competition had changed. He said that competition between commercial and semi-Government


organisations is not what they have in mind. During the detailed discussion in Committee, the then spokesman for the Labour Opposition made it clear that they accepted competition. They started by saying that if they get back to power they would rule it out. I believe that on the strength of the words on the record my right hon. Friend was right to say that he understood that both sides of the House accepted competition. All that is in the past.
This tinkering about can do nothing but harm. It affects the continuation of the companies, as has been shown in the London troubles, and it interferes with the quality of the programmes. We should be thinking of the future. We should give the Order speedy approval and keep the right hon. Gentleman and his colleagues to their promise to place the future of independent television on a safer and more sensible basis.

1.10 a.m.

Mr. Gerald Kaufman: I should first declare an interest as a member of the National Union of Journalists. I take very seriously the necessity for the continued employment of journalists, and I believe that that is relevant to the Order.
With all the shortcomings of independent television to which my hon. Friend the Member for Derby, North (Mr. Whitehead) referred, it is right that this grant of money should be made, though it ill becomes the present Government of all Governments to hand out £10 million to a lame duck, and it ill becomes the Minister to quote in aid the Report of the National Board for Prices and Incomes which his Government are busy abolishing.

Mr. David James: I want to question the word "grant". Why do hon. Gentlemen opposite always regard the remission of taxation as a grant? It is a return to the owners of their own money.

Mr. Kaufman: That is so only if one believes that there should be no taxation or any kind. At the moment there is taxation, and the State has a right to decide how the money it has taken in tax should be dispensed. Having back £10 million is a grant to those who receive it.
It is right that this money should be given to the independent television companies. I hope, since it is happening in this makeshift and inefficient way, the independent television companies will use the money wisely. Current affairs programmes are needed on independent television. I say this because of my grave fears about the employment situation of journalists and also because current affairs programmes are necessary for civic education and are very popular. The radio programmes "World at One" and "Any Questions" are the most keenly listened to of any radio programmes, just as "This Week" is one of the most popular television programmes. Current affairs programmes are good viewing, popular viewing and provide necessary employment for journalists, opportunities for which are contracting.
The loss of advertising revenue has meant fewer and thinner newspapers, and there are likely to be fewer newspapers still. If the stories circulating in Fleet Street are true, from next Monday we shall have one fewer national newspaper, fewer employment opportunities and fewer voices to speak. Television, as a lasting medium, should therefore step in to redress the balance.
Hon. Members have referred to London Weekend Television and Mr. Rupert Murdoch. As one who has known him for a considerable time in various vicissitudes, I do not totally share the views which others hold of him. Although he is a rumbustious person who can introduce his fair share of vulgarity and irresponsibility into those areas of communication which he controls, he has saved the Sun newspaper and sent its circulation up to two million. He has done that partly by methods of which many of us would disapprove, but he is nevertheless maintaining a serious newspaper which comments on and covers politics in a responsible way within the acres of nude flesh which surround it. I would go further and say that, despite the various vulgarities included in the News of the World, Mr. Murdoch has improved that newspaper, too.
It is obvious that he will run London Weekend Television on entirely different lines than were planned. I deplore this because, although some of us did not approve of independent television and wish that it did not exist, the original


promises for London Weekend Television were that it would be something one could swallow without being nauseated. But that set-up has gone, and if Mr. Murdoch had never stepped into the picture that set up would still not exist. It has got away with breaking promises.
Mr. Murdoch. with all his idiosyncratic characteristics, is a man who, nevertheless, takes some serious interest in the issues of the day, as is shown by the fact that he has gone to Australia to launch a serious Sunday companion to the serious daily paper he runs there. He now has, under this levy remission, another £880,000 for London Weekend Television.
I appeal to him to confound the people who have suspicions, which may not be ill-founded, about what he will do with the company and to use this money to introduce into London Weekend Television popular, serious, current affairs programmes of a kind which would restore the name of that company. That would justify Mr. Murdoch's regime and would even justify the hypocritical inconsistencies of the Government in paying out £10 million to private industry when they have said that that is something they are not willing to do.

1.17 a.m.

Mr. Hugh Jenkins: I will not follow my hon. Friend the Member for Ardwick (Mr. Kaufman) in what he said about Mr. Murdoch, except perhaps to say this: I agree that Mr. Murdoch may have preserved the Sun, but when my hon. Friend said that Mr. Murdoch had preserved the Sun as a newspaper that seemed to be going a little too far. He may have kept it going as a daily magazine, but whether as a newspaper seems to be open to question.
If I may break new ground by referring to the Order which is before us, in my view it is a document which, as one whose general interest in television is supplemented by a particular interest on behalf of the performers in it, I must accept, but it is a hamfisted and I hope, a temporary measure. One of the reasons I think it is wrong is that it does not ensure that the companies which most need the money will be those to get it. In general, the effect in all probability will be that those companies which need the money the least will get the most. This is almost certain to be the case under this method.
The second criticism is that it is not certain that any part of the money will be used to improve the programmes. Therefore, the proposal I put forward, among others, which seems to be becoming popular, was that we should try to have a half-way house between the present method of deducting the levy from gross revenue and the other alternative, which is merely additional taxation on profits—in other words, that we should take the certified programme expenditure and charge the levy after that point. The effect of the latter would be to encourage the maximum expenditure on programmes. If it were certified in that way it would make sure that programme companies were not allowed to get away with anything they should not get away with.
As I have said, I regard this as a temporary measure. I do not share the admiration of my hon. Friend for Derby, North (Mr. Whitehead) for the 1964 Act. The Act was very properly criticised by the Pilkington Committee, which opposed the franchise system with its virtual necessity to develop elsewhere because of the possible loss of the franchise. This has nothing to do with improving programmes. Diversification is merely a financial insurance against the possibility of losing the franchise. The franchise system is a bad one.
The Pilkington Committee was right to say that the Independent Television Authority should be the recipient of advertising revenue, leaving the programme contractors to do their job, and that anything short of that would be a measure of a palliative character. Some better palliative than this Order is urgently necessary, and, if the House approves it, I hope that it will do so only in the sense of saying to the Minister, "We accept what you are doing on the undertaking that you will do something better before long."

1.21 a.m.

Mr. Chataway: I am grateful to those hon. Members who have taken part in this short debate. It has been an occasion for highlighting a number of concerns about the independent television system, and it has produced a degree of unanimity about the Order and a fair consensus of opinion about the way in which the House would like to see the levy changed.
I must stress again that I am not in a position to guarantee that we shall find an acceptable substitute for the present levy system. I accept that it does not work well and has the disadvantages that a number of hon. Members have mentioned. There are difficulties about an excess profits tax and about the interesting variant produced by the hon. Member for Putney (Mr. Hugh Jenkins). However, I can assure the House that, before the end of the next full levy year, we shall explore every alternative, and I hope then to be in a position to suggest a satisfactary alternative system.

Mr. Mayhew: The right hon. Gentleman says that he will examine every alternative. Will that include the admirable suggestion made by my hon. Friend the Member for Putney (Mr. Hugh Jenkins)? Can we be assured that a reorganisation on the basis recommended by the Pilkington Committee will not be excluded?

Mr. Chataway: No. I am not suggesting that, in the next 18 months, we shall overturn the entire I.T.V. system. That would be a strange undertaking to give. My undertaking relates solely to the levy and its operation, and not to the structure of independent television as a whole.
My hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Ely (Sir H. Legge-Bourke) took the opportunity, quite fairly, to raise the matter of the Belmont transmitter, about which he and the right hon. Member for Kettering (Sir G. de Freitas) feel strongly, as do quite a number of other hon. Members. I am sure that the I.T.A. will take note of what has been said, but I hope that I shall be forgiven if I do not follow my hon. Friend along that path in the few minutes at my disposal.
My hon. Friend the Member for Dorset, North (Mr. David James) suggested that it might be that, in the very near future, the commercial monopoly that the independent television companies have at the moment in their areas will be broken as a result of technological developments that he mentioned. The N.B.P.I. Report points to this possibility. However, I regard it as a longer-term possibility. I do not think that casettes, multi-channel wires or direct reception from satellites are likely to be develop-

ments within the next few years which will totally alter the nature of broadcasting in this country. But I agree with my hon. Friend about the longer term, and I agree that, before we consider the structure of broadcasting in the post-1976 period, we must seriously consider all these issues—and preferably as near to the point as possible when information is available.
The hon. Members for Barons Court (Mr. Richard) and for Putney, and one or two others, expressed concern on behalf of the smaller, weaker companies in the I.T.V. system. The hon. Member for Barons Court suggested that there would be no financial joy for them. The reduction in the levy will be of value indirectly to those companies, because there is a system of cross-subsidisation which works in I.T.V. The I.T.A. has said that, as a result of the reduction of the levy, if it is approved by Parliament, it will be able to reduce the rentals to the smaller companies and at the same time impose a larger burden upon the bigger and more prosperous companies.
Another way in which the smaller companies will be helped is in the sums which they will pay for programmes which they get on the network. The charges made for programmes received on the network are related to revenue after the levy. Therefore, the larger companies will be paying more and the smaller companies will proportionately be paying less. This is a measure which should be of value to the small as well as to the large companies.
The hon. Member for Barons Court asked about the £3½ million rental increase of the I.T.A. and what it was principally intended to do. It is in part to meet increased costs to continue existing work, but also to continue the U.H.F. developments and the introduction of colour to enable the I.T.A., which has dropped behind the B.B.C., to catch up. It has always been intended that the I.T.A. and the B.B.C. should, so far as possible, march in step in these developments. The I.T.A. has taken the view that it is necessary to have this substantial increase in its rental if it is to catch up in these respects.
A number of hon. Members have expressed concern about developments over London Weekend Television. The hon.


Member for Derby, North (Mr. Whitehead) said, quite fairly, that he hoped that I would resist invitations to set myself up as any kind of commissar of communications. I assure the hon. Gentleman that I shall certainly resist any blandishments of that kind. In doing so it will be necessary for me to make it absolutely clear that it is not me who determines whether there should be mergers during the course of contracts; and it is not me, or it should not be me, who determines whether changes in the shareholdings in individual companies constitute such a fundamental change in their nature as to warrant the withdrawal of a contract or any other measure. These clearly are matters which lie within the jurisdiction of the Independent Television Authority.
The I.T.A. has powers under Section 11(4) of the Television Act which are relevant to this matter. The House may know that the Authority has said that, in respect of the events which have been mentioned, it will be considering these powers when it meets later this week. The Authority has informed me that it will be keeping the company's programme schedules under careful review, but that it has taken no decisions in the matter as yet. These are the responsibilities of the I.T.A. and not matters in which it would be acceptable for the Government to intervene. However, it is proper that views on these issues should be expressed in this House, and the I.T.A. will take note of them.

Division No. 195.]
AYES
[1.31 a.m.


Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)
Green, Alan
Money, Ernie


Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)
Grylls, Michael
Monks, Mrs. Connie


Atkins, Humphrey
Gummer, Selwyn
Morgan-Giles, Rear-Adm.


Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S.W.)
Gurden, Harold
Nicholls, Sir Harmer


Boscawen, Robert
Hall, Miss Joan (Keighley)
Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael


Bowden, Andrew
Haselhurst, Alan
Normanton, Tom


Bray, Ronald
Hornsby-Smith,Rt.Hn.Dame Patricia
Onslow, Cranley


Brinton, Sir Tatton
Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, N.)
Owen, Idris (Stockport, N.)


Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
Hunt, John
Page, John (Harrow, W.)


Butler, Adam (Bosworth)
James, David
Parkinson, Cecil (Enfield, W.)


Chapman, Sydney
Johnson Smith, G. (E. Grinstead)
Percival, Ian


Chataway, Rt. Hn. Christopher
King, Tom (Bridgwater)
Pym, Rt. Hn. Francis


Churchill, W. S.
Kitson, Timothy
Raison, Timothy


Clegg, Walter
Knox, David
Redmond, Robert


Cooke, Robert
Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry
Reed, Laurance (Bolton, E.)


Dykes, Hugh
Le Marchant, Spencer
Rees, Peter (Dover)


Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Longden, Gilbert
Roberts, Michael (Cardiff, N.)


Emery, Peter
MacArthur, Ian
Roberts, Wyn (Conway)


Fenner, Mrs. Peggy
McCrindle, R. A.
Scott, Nicholas


Finsberg, Geoffrey (Hampstead)
McLaren, Martin
Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh &amp; Whitby)


Fortescue, Tim
McNair-Wilson, Michael
Shelton, William (Clapham)


Gibson-Watt, David
Marples, Rt. Hn. Ernest
Speed, Keith


Goodhart, Philip
Mather, Carol
Spence, John


Gorst, John
Meyer, Sir Anthony
Stanbrook, Ivor


Gower, Raymond
Moate, Roger
Stuttaford, Dr. Tom

The hon. Member for Barons Court also asked about the profits of the companies and what effect these would have. Table 5 on page 19 of the Report of the N.B.P.I. gives a good deal of the information which the hon. Gentleman was seeking; but it might help the House if I give some additional information. The N.B.P.I. gave two estimates for 1971 —a low and a high revenue forecast—and it produced for the years thereafter two separate patterns: one based on a pessimistic forecast of what would happen and the other based on a more optimistic forecast.

In fact, the I.T.A. now believes that the revenue of the I.T.V. companies for 1971 will be somewhat below the low revenue forecast of the N.B.P.I. I cannot, therefore, hold out the expectation that the reduction in the levy which I am proposing will be sufficient to increase the rate of return on capital to the 13½ per cent. after tax which the N.B.P.I. suggested would be a reasonable rate of return for the television companies. As 1 say, I cannot pretend that the proposed reduction will necessarily be large enough to produce the rate of return which it was suggested over the period of the contract would be right for the companies. Nevertheless, this reduction will enable—

It being one and a half hours after the commencement of proceedings on the Motion, Mr. SPEAKER put the Question, pursuant to Standing Order No. 2 (Exempted business).

The House divided: Ayes 85, Noes 1.

Sutcliffe, John
Waddington, David



Thomas, John Stradling (Monmouth)
Warren, Kenneth
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Tilney, John
White, Roger (Gravesend)
Mr. Reginald Eyre and


Tugendhat, Christopher
Wilkinson, John
Mr. Victor Goodhew.


Vaughan, Dr. Gerard
Worsley, Marcus





NOES



de Freitas, Rt. Hn, Sir Geoffrey




TELLERS FOR THE NOES:




Mr. Michael Cocks and




Mr. James Wellbeloved.

Resolved,
That the Television Act 1964 (Additional Payments) Order 1971, a draft of which was laid before this House on 16th February, be approved.

ROYAL NORTHERN HOSPITAL, HOLLOWAY

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Goodhew.]

1.40 a.m.

Mr. Michael O'Halloran: I am grateful to be able to bring to the attention of the House the very serious position of the Royal Northern Hospital in Islington, the fact that no definite plans exist for its rebuilding, and the fact that there is a grave shortage of beds. This sense of grievance is not confined to one part of the community but is deeply felt by the medical staff and, most important, by prospective patients.
Since 1947, suggestions which have been made for a major increase in the number of beds on the hospital site have been rejected on the grounds that the Inner London Authority is well provided with hospital beds and that this applies in the Holloway and Islington areas because of the proximity of the Whittington Hospital. In 1948, that hospital had 2,000 beds. Now, it has 990. In the newly planned Whittington Hospital, there will be 920 beds, of which 150 will be for psychiatric patients. If an accident service is planned on that site, 200 beds will have to be allocated for this special problem, thus leaving an overall number of 570 beds, which will make a further reduction from the present 990 to 420.
Examination of a map of the area surrounding the Royal Northern Hospital shows that it is very well placed in relation to traffic routes and that transport

facilities are excellent. It will also be seen that, apart from teaching hospitals, there are no hospitals between the Royal Northern and the City in the south or between the Royal Northern and the West End in the south-east and east. There are no hospitals except the Metropolitan and the Prince of Wales, Tottenham, both of which are comparatively small, and I understand that their viability is at present under consideration.
The Royal Northern stands in an island site and all the properties and land there belong to the Department of Health and Social Security, so no compulsory purchase orders would be needed to acquire land for expansion. The hospital now provides services equal to, and in some cases greater than, those associated with hospitals of 500 beds or more. It is evident that, if the number of beds on the Holloway site were appreciably increased, the cost per patient would go down. The trouble is, there are now 265 general beds available at the hospital.
On 2nd February, 1968, Mr. Kenneth Robinson, then Minister of Health, wrote to my predecessor, the late G. W. Reynolds, saying that there was an urgent need for more beds to enable the hospital to fulfil its responsibilities to the National Health Service. He then suggested increasing the number of general beds available by closing the maternity department and decreasing the number of private beds, so that the resulting increase was only 17 beds.
It should be noted that, in the years 1964–67, the income from the private beds was £362,000 and the overall spending on allocations for the whole group was £293,624, so that the private wing of the Royal Northern financed the overall spending on the general beds not only in this hospital but in the whole group.
Future plans for the Islington area were discussed in detail at the Department of Health and Social Security in January this year "as part of a discussion about a geriatric research centre". The Department officials eventually acknowledged verbally that by 1981, after the Royal Free Hospital, University College Hospital and Whittington developments were under way, there would be 60,000 or 80,000 requiring hospital services for whom no provision has been made by those three hospitals under the direction of the North-East Metropolitan Regional Hospital Board. In other words, about 400 additional general beds would be required, so that if the new Royal Free, University College and Whittington Hospitals were not increased in size, the Royal Northern would still be needed, and there seems no possibility of altering the plans for these three new hospitals.
The Royal Northern is almost unique in having a very large number of outpatients but a very small number of inpatient beds. The out-patient and casualty service of this hospital is out of all proportion to its present size, and this shows another planning problem for the future in that without the Royal Northern, as things are even now, Whittington Hospital will have to take about 280,000 casualty out-patient attendances yearly, and this has not yet been planned for in the new hospital.
In 1958 the Royal Northern had 72,991 out-patient attendances. In 1965 it had 95,000. For the quarter ending 31st December, 1970, it had 37,979 outpatient attendances. In the casualty department in 1958 it had 44,418, and in 1965, 50,312. The total number of admissions to the Royal Northern of all types increased from 5,075 in 1951 to 7,572 in 1966. The average duration of stay in the five hospitals within the Board's area from 1965 to 1968 was: New End, 17·9 days; Whittington, 15·9 days; Central Middlesex, 14·3 days; Paddington General, 14·2 days; and the Royal Northern, 11·2 days.
The major problem facing us in the next 20 years is the solution to the problem of the care of the aged, the chronically sick who need permanent hospital care, and the geriatrics who need hospital help but who can, with imagination and skill, be incorporated back into society. The problem regarding the

Royal Northern is now under review by the Department of Health, but the Hospital Group Management Committee has for the last nine years repeatedly, without the slightest success, asked the regional boards to tackle this problem.
In the last 10 years improvements to the Royal Northern Hospital have been a new out-patients department with X-ray and full casualty and accident services, four new operating theatres, a new nurses' home and an intensive care unit, and this will be completed this year.
The City of London Maternity Hospital is at present sited in Hanley Road, about half a mile from the Royal Northern. It is the second largest maternity hospital in London, having over 100 beds. Both the Hospital Medical Committee and the Management Committee have agreed that the City of London Maternity Hospital should be redeveloped on the Royal Northern site.
I feel it advisable that a maternity hospital should have at its disposal all the disciplines and ancillary services of a general hospital. There is at present an acute shortage of maternity beds in this area of North-West London and I am informed that, owing to the shortage of beds and facilities at the Royal Northern, patients for pregnancy termination have to be put on the waiting list.
The Royal Northern Hospital has served the people of Islington and the neighbouring area from 1856 and I suggest that there is a viable case for the future development of this hospital on these grounds: the ratio of beds to the population; the present move of the Royal Free from Grays Inn Road to Hampstead; the need for a local accident service; the need for a regional geriatric service for this part of London; the necessity of establishing the City of London Maternity Hospital on the island site of the Royal Northern; the ability to recruit staff and to continue to give post-graduate training; and the continuation of a hospital which has shown itself to be one of the best in London.
Rumours have been circulating among the medical staff of the hospital and statements have appeared in local newspapers to the effect that the Royal Northern is to be phased out. I hope that the Minister will say tonight that the Royal Northern Hospital will continue to serve the people of Islington.

1.50 a.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Security (Mr. Michael Alison): I am glad that the House has the opportunity from time to time to discuss problems which are not directly concerned with the great national or international questions of the moment but with the more local issues—often the saner issues —which touch intimately the affairs of most of us at some time or other during our lives—and, in this case, touch a large block of people, both the users of the hospital and those who work in it, very intimately and particularly.
Tonight, the hon. Member for Islington, North (Mr. O'Halloran) has given us the opportunity to take time to consider the place of the Royal Northern Hospital, both in the present and in the future, in the life of the staff and the people it serves. I know that this busy acute hospital of 270 beds is held in the highest regard in the locality which it has served since its foundation as long ago as 1856, and I realise that its extremely hard working, efficient and competent staff who serve it both devotedly and loyally, having the best interests of the hospital at heart, are, naturally, concerned to know its future place in the scheme of things in that part of London.
As the hon. Gentleman knows, the body with overall responsibility for the planning of hospital services in this area, which includes Islington and Camden, is the North West Metropolitan Regional Hospital Board. In the Hospital Plan, Cmnd. 1604 of 1962 and in the Hospital Building Programme, Cmnd. 3000, published by the last Government in May 1966, that Board provided for the future development of the Royal Northern Hospital, and it told me recently that its present intention remains in accordance with those proposals, which were that it should be redeveloped on its existing site. The first stage of the redevelopment comprising out-patient, accident and diagnostic X-ray departments was completed in 1963, and this was followed in 1969 by a new nurses' home.
The hon. Gentleman will appreciate, however, that the future of an individual hospital cannot be planned in a vacuum and that the planning authority must pay regard to such factors as population trends, the rôle of other hospitals in the

locality, and the pattern of teaching hospital services. While, therefore, in the Board's view, there is no reasonable doubt about the continuing acute rôle of the Royal Northern Hospital, it has not come to any final zconclusion about its future size, which would need to be related, obviously, to the future population of the area.
For this and other reasons, the Board has not found it possible to include the full further redevelopment of the hospital in the current capital building programme which extends up to 1978. In the short term, however, the transfer of the radiotherapy department to the Royal Free Hospital has enabled the Board, as the hon. Gentleman probably knows, to arrange a necessary addition of about 20 acute beds to the hospital.
In assessing what the future size of the Royal Northern Hospital might be, the Board will need to have regard to the factor of population, as I said, and to the future rôle of the teaching hospitals. The population of the area around the Royal Northern Hospital is declining in contrast to other areas in the region where the build-up of population has created heavy pressure on hospital services leading to the need to augment them as rapidly as possible.
Into the area pattern must be slotted developments in the teaching hospital field and the likely service effects on these must be taken into account. The main developments are the building of the new Royal Free Hospital at Hampstead and the assumption of the district function by University College Hospital.
In recent years it has become apparent that if the country is to train the doctors needed not only to maintain but to improve medical services, medical schools in association with hospitals must expand to be able to accept more students and the hospitals concerned must have access to a population big enough to provide experience in the treatment of illness for students under the guidance of experienced consultants. In order to achieve this aim, and to make the best use of available resources, it has been found desirable in many cases for teaching hospitals to add to their teaching function that of hospitals serving a local community. In this way they assume responsibility for serving a district, meeting


all hospital needs and not merely specialist interests, and in turn come to be regarded as the district general hospital.
In North London, it is hoped that the Royal Free Hospital and the University College Hospital might assume the responsibilities of district hospitals and thus together serve a population of some 270,000. There would remain in the London Boroughs of Islington, Camden and Haringey a population of 230,000–250,000 which would continue to be served by the North London Group of hospitals including the Royal Northern Hospital.
Another factor which makes it difficult for the Board to finalise its planning in this area is the effect of forthcoming proposals on reorganisation of the health services. As the hon. Member knows the Government have announced their intention to unify the three parts of the National Health Service outside local government. The reshaped National Health Service will come into operation on 1st April, 1974, the date set for the coming into operation of the new local authorities promised in the White Paper of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment called "Local Government in England".
The hon. Gentleman in particular will also know that we are by no means satisfied that the proposals for the administrative structure of the National Health Service set out in the previous Administration's two Green Papers, particularly the second, would create an efficient structure for a unified service. We are therefore studying carefully the comments made on that Green Paper and hope to issue shortly our own proposals for the reorganisation of the service. It is our intention to provide an efficient and effective management structure in order to provide the comprehensive care and treatment to which the public rightly looks.
However, these planning uncertainties have, as I have said, led to the Board's being unable to include the full redevelopment of the Royal Northern Hospital in its current building programme but the programme is a flexible one. For example the medical staff's proposal for a geriatric research centre is under active consideration. More should not therefore be read into this exclusion for the current programme than that develop-

ments elsewhere merit in the Board's view a higher priority, at least for the present.
I think that the hon. Member will appreciate from what I have already said that there is absolutely no prospect of any change in the general rôle of the Royal Northern Hospital in the immediate future. My hope and expectation is that it will continue its excellent and devoted service to the people of the area for years to come.

Mr. O'Halloran: I have here a paper from the Royal Northern dated 31st December, 1970, when it had 1,057 people on the waiting list for beds. Some of them had been waiting for three years to have operations. What will happen to them?

Mr. Alison: I take the hon. Gentleman's point. This merely serves to underline my point that the general rôle of the Royal Northern Hospital for the immediate future is certainly secure. The picture he has presented of an extensive waiting list demonstrates the essential rôle it is fulfilling now. It is my hope and expectation that it will continue this service and live to discharge its long waiting list for years to come. However, with the best will in the world, the hon. Member would not expect me to forecast the future with any certainty for more than 10 to 15 years ahead, particularly in the context of London, with its fluctuating population and the introduction of "district" responsibilities to teaching hospitals. But for the future, numbered certainly in years, I am confident that its rôle is secure, and I believe that that is the Board's view.
Even if at some time in the unknown future a change of circumstances, however unlikely it may appear at the moment, led to a review of the rôle of the Royal Northern, the hon. Member can be assured that the closure or change of use of any hospital is a matter for decision by my right hon. Friend, and that, before he makes a decision on a proposal of this kind, he satisfies himself scrupulously not only that the proposal is sound but also that the regional board making it has undertaken proper local consultation before recommending it to him.
The task of securing local understanding and acceptance of a proposal to alter


the rôle of a hospital is a difficult, indeed delicate one, and guidance has been issued to regional boards on the handling of proposals they make to my right hon. Friend. Over the years, as the hospital building programme has developed and new or developed hospitals have replaced those which have become redundant, considerable experience of the task has been gained, and the latest guidance, which was issued by my right hon. Friend's predecessor, reflects that experience. I think that it might be helpful if I were to outline here the essence of that guidance.
I make this point to the hon. Gentleman not to suggest that we regard any proposal to change the status of the hospital to be imminent—we have no knowledge of any such proposal—but to underline that there is an enormous amount of carefully staged discussion before any proposal even comes to be considered by my right hon. Friend, so many safeguards are built in.
The procedure commended to boards has a number of essential features. Boards are advised to follow a plan designed so that the local community can understand the reasons for any proposal and also the new arrangements that would be brought into operation if the proposal were to be accepted by my right hon. Friend—in short, to ensure that informed public discussion is possible. They are urged to undertake local consultations with representatives of the bodies most concerned, particularly the local authorities, the general practitioners and the staff. And before finally making up its mind on a proposal, the board must, of course, give proper consideration to reasonable opinion expressed during

the course of the consultations. Of course, the staff of the hospital would have ample opportunity to make their views known to the board if any proposal were envisaged long before it came to the Secretary of State. The board then makes its recommendations to my right hon. Friend, together with a full report on the proposal and on the consultations and, as I have already said, the final decision then rests with him, and with him alone.
So the hon. Member will see that, even if in due course, the North West Metropolitan Regional Hospital Board were to propose that, in future, the Royal Northern should fulfil a different rôle, there would be no hasty or unpublicised action on the proposal. The opportunity would be provided for local interests to examine and comment on it and the final decision whether to accept it be taken in the light of all the comments made. I make this point merely to show that there are many stages to be gone through long before any proposal reaches my right hon. Friend. I have no reason to believe that any proposal is imminent in this case, however.
I hope that I have said enough to reassure local residents, the staff of the hospital and the hon. Gentleman that, in the light of present day circumstances, and subject to planning considerations not apparent now but which may become so in the future, the Royal Northern Hospital has a promising future and so features and continues to feature in the Board's proposals for the future.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at four Minutes past Two o'clock.